Ex Parte Gu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

11269274 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
11/269,274
98195 7590
IPR Law Group, PC
5338 Cornish Street
Houston, TX 77007
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11108/2005 Jinsheng Gu
04/04/2016
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
DOGO.P019 6874
EXAMINER
UDDIN, MDI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
rick@iprlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINSHENG GU and PREMJITH MANAPETTY
Appeal2013-006381
Application 11/269,274
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to static file system differencing and
updating including portion-level differencing and block level updating of
units of an original image. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
Appeal2013-006381
Application 11/269,274
1. A device for differencing static file system images,
compnsmg:
a receiver that receives images of a static file system, the
images including an original image and a new image;
a pre-processor that divides the original image into a
plurality of original sections and divides the new image into a
plurality of new sections, wherein the pre-processor divides the
images into the plurality of sections based in part on one of block
information and image structure of the static file system images
including target device block information;
a dependency generator that identifies dependency
alignments between the plurality of original sections and the
plurality of new sections including information as to sections of
the new image that depend on sections of the original image, each
dependency alignment including information as to a sequence by
which new sections are to be updated during an update of the
original image; and
a difference engine that generates a delta file for at least
one of the new sections, wherein the delta file includes
differences between the at least one new sections and at least one
of the original sections on which the at least one of the new
sections depends.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chiang
Herle
US 2004/0062130 Al
US 7,529,779 B2
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Apr. 1, 2004
May 5, 2009
Provisional filed June
10,2004
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Herle.
2
Appeal2013-006381
Application 11/269,274
Claims 3, 6-3, 15, 16, and 18-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herle in view of Chiang.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Herle
teaches the limitation of:
a dependency generator that identifies dependency alignments
between the plurality of original sections and the plurality of new
sections including information as to sections of the new image
that depend on sections of the original image, each dependency
alignment including information as to a sequence by which new
sections are to be updated during an update of the original image
as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, and 17
Appellants argue that Herle does not disclose a dependency generator
that identifies dependency alignments between the plurality of original
sections and the plurality of new sections including information as to
sections of the new image that depend on sections of the original image,
each dependency alignment including information as to a sequence by which
new sections are to be updated during an update of the original image (Br.
14). Appellants argue that Herle's segmented delta file generator cannot be
the claimed dependency generator (Br. 16). Appellants further argue that the
order of delta files in the composite file teaches nothing regarding a
3
Appeal2013-006381
Application 11/269,274
sequence by which new sections are to be updated during an update of the
original image (Br. 18).
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments.
Appellants' own Specification describes the dependency alignments
as follows:
The SFS differencing identifies 306 dependency alignments
between the original sections and the new sections. A delta file
is generated 308 for at least one of the new sections. The delta
file includes but is not limited to differences between a new
section and one or more original section( s ), where the new
section depends on the original section(s). The delta files of
alternative embodiments may include differences between at
least one new section and at least one original section on which
the new sections depend.
Spec. 7:12-18.
Consistent with Appellants' Specification, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Herle teaches a segmented delta file generator 245 that identifies
dependency alignments (col. 7, 11. 18-25) between the plurality of original
sections (col. 7, 11. 20-22; plurality of segmented original file 235) and the
plurality of new sections (col. 7, 11. 20-22; plurality of segmented binary file
235 (i.e. new file)) including information as to sections of the new image
that depend on sections of the original image (col. 7, 11. 18-25, 63---66) (Ans.
3--4). We agree with the Examiner's finding that "[e]ach one of delta files
311-316 is produced from one segment of upgraded binary file 230 (i.e. new
image) and one segment from original binary file 235" which implies the
sections of the new image depend on sections of the original image, each
dependency alignment (col. 7, 11. 18-25; delta file) including information as
to a sequence (col. 7, 11. 61-64; composite delta file 250 comprises
individual delta files 311-316 (i.e. sequence)) by which new sections are to
4
Appeal2013-006381
Application 11/269,274
be updated (Ans. 4). During an update of the original image (col. 7, 11. 61-
66 and col. 8, 11. 20-21; "composite delta file" which specifies the sequence
to which new sections are to be updated - delta files 311 to 316 (i.e.,
sequentially updating)) the delta file can be applied (i.e., update) on the
target mobile station (Ans. 4).
We also agree with the Examiner's finding that the Herle's segmented
delta file generator constitutes a dependency generator (Br. 5). As stated
supra, from Appellants' own disclosure the alignment between the original
images and new images are delta files, and thus, the segmented delta file
generator is reasonably interpreted as a dependency generator (Ans. 5).
We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Herle' s "composite
delta file" specifies the sequence to which new sections are to be updated -
delta files 311 to 316 (i.e., sequentially updating) (Ans. 6).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 14, and 17.
Claims 3, 6--13, 15, 16, and 18-25
Appellants essentially argue that Chiang does not teach the disputed
limitation as stated supra, (Br. 19-21 ). For the same reasons as stated
above, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 6-13, 15, 16, and
18-25.
of:
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Herle teaches the limitation
a dependency generator that identifies dependency alignments
between the plurality of original sections and the plurality of new
sections including information as to sections of the new image
that depend on sections of the original image, each dependency
5
Appeal2013-006381
Application 11/269,274
alignment including information as to a sequence by which new
sections are to be updated during an update of the original image
as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6