Ex Parte Haswell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2013

10952287 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JONATHAN M. HASWELL

___________

Appeal 2010-010954
Application 10/952,287
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010954
Application 10/952,287

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19. Claims 2 and 11 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to detecting a process for gaining access
to and updating an object while the object is locked for commitment to
stable storage. The process provides a copy of the existing object, with the
copy considered as a new primary copy of the object. Updates can be made
to the primary new copy without any impact to the commitment to the stable
storage and without a delay to the process making the new updates. Any
future searches for the primary new copy object will return references to the
primary new copy, while the original copy is only maintained for the period
required to complete the commitment to stable storage. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method of writing a collection of objects from a pool
of objects, from a memory unit of a computer system to a stable
storage component of said computer system, said method comprising:
marking objects being written to said stable storage component
as being locked with a mark;
receiving a request to access a first object of said objects;
determining if said first object is marked as locked;
if said first object is not marked as locked, granting access to
said first object;
if said first object is marked as locked:
making a copy version of said first object;
performing modifications on said copy version of said
first object; and

Appeal 2010-010954
Application 10/952,287

3
delineating said copy version of said first object as a
primary copy version, wherein subsequent searches of said
memory unit recognize said primary copy version as a most
recent update of said first object;
allowing a write process to be completed on said
collection of objects;
removing said mark from said objects; and
discarding non-primary copy versions upon completion
of said write process, wherein said non-primary copy versions
comprise objects from which a primary copy version was
subsequently made.

Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Nettleton (U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2005/0289189 A1; Dec. 29, 2005) and Tormasov (U.S.
Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0027956 A1; Feb. 3, 2005).
Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Nettleton, Tormasov, and Bamford (U.S. Patent No. 6,567,827
B2; May 20, 2003).
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Nettleton, Tormasov, and Masterson (U.S. Patent No.
5,073,851; Dec. 17, 1991).

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 12; see also
Reply Br. 7-8) that the combination of Nettleton and Tormasov would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “if
said first object is marked as locked . . . . delineating said copy version of
said first object as a primary copy version, wherein subsequent searches of
Appeal 2010-010954
Application 10/952,287

4
said memory unit recognize said primary copy version as a most recent
update of said first object.”
The Examiner found that the snapshot creation of Tormasov and the
COW (copy-on-write) flag of Tormasov, which a system recognizes before
wiring to a string, correspond to the limitation “if said first object is marked
as locked . . . . delineating said copy version of said first object as a primary
copy version, wherein subsequent searches of said memory unit recognize
said primary copy version as a most recent update of said first object.”
(Ans. 6-7.) We do not agree.
Tormasov relates to computer systems for providing online data
backup. (¶ [0003].) In the “Background Art” section, Tormasov explains
that during snapshot creation, a sector by sector copying of a whole file
system such that “files may be modified during copying—some files can be
open for writing or locked, for example.” (¶ [0025].) Also in the
“Background Art” section, Tormasov explains that for a copy-on-write
(COW) policy, “[i]n the event an application wishes to write to the string
(e.g., modify it), then the system notes the COW flag and performs the
actual copying of bytes.” (¶ [0027].)
Claim 1 requires that the “delineating said copy version of said first
object as a primary copy version” occur on the condition “if said first object
is marked as locked.” However, the Examiner has provided insufficient
evidence to illustrate a conditional relationship between the snapshot
creation of Tormasov, in which some files are locked, and the copying of
files as a result of the COW flag. Accordingly, we are persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments that “nowhere does Tormasov disclose a condition
of, ‘if said first object is marked as locked,’ such that a function of
Appeal 2010-010954
Application 10/952,287

5
‘delineating said copy version of said first object as a primary copy version,’
is based on the first object being marked as locked.” (Reply Br. 8 (emphases
in original).)
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Nettleton and Tormasov would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the limitation “if said first object is marked as locked . . . .
delineating said copy version of said first object as a primary copy version,
wherein subsequent searches of said memory unit recognize said primary
copy version as a most recent update of said first object.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 depend from independent
claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.
Independent claims 10 and 19 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 10 and 19, as well as dependent claims 12, 14, 15, 17,
and 18, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claims 4 and 13 depend from independent claims 1 and 10. Bamford
was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 4
and 13. (Ans. 10.) However, the Examiner’s application of Bamford does
not cure the above noted deficiencies of Nettleton and Tormasov.
Claims 7 and 16 depend from independent claims 1 and 10.
Masterson was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of
claims 7 and 16. (Ans. 11.) However, the Examiner’s application of
Appeal 2010-010954
Application 10/952,287

6
Masterson does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Nettleton and
Tormasov.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 is
reversed.

REVERSED

msc