Ex Parte HöhnkeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 201714378419 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/378,419 08/13/2014 Thorsten Hohnke EHF-14-2313 1018 35811 7590 11/16/2017 IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US) ONE LIBERTY PLACE 1650 MARKET ST, SUITE 4900 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 EXAMINER FAROOQUI, QUAZI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/16/2017 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): pto.phil@dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THORSTEN HOHNKE1 Appeal 2017-003660 Application 14/378,419 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN D. HAMANN, and SCOTT E. BAIN Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 11 through 25. We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to a cluster storage system having middleware that provides a plurality of virtual storage pools for a plurality of users. Abstract. The middleware includes a user interface and an erase algorithm for secure erasure of data blocks, and the user interface provides the erase function to erase the storage pool allocated to the user. Id. Claim 11 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Fujitsu Technology Solutions Intellectual Property GmbH. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-003660 Application 14/378,419 11. A cluster storage system comprising: a plurality of mass storage systems that provide storage capacity to store data blocks; middleware that provides a plurality of virtual storage pools for a plurality of users of the cluster storage system; at least one user interface configured to access the storage pool allocated to a user; wherein the middleware comprises at least one erase algorithm for secure erasure of data blocks; the at least one user interface provides an erase function to erase the storage pool allocated to the user; the middleware configured to erase all user- allocated data locks of the plurality of mass storage systems using the at least one erase algorithm and report the successful erasure via the user interface when the user calls up the erase function; and the cluster storage system is connected to the Internet and configured as a cloud storage system. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 11 through 15, 19 through 21, and 23 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsao (US 2009/0100163 Al, pub. Apr. 16, 2009), Prahlad et al. (US 2010/0332401 Al, pub. Dec. 30, 2010, “Prahlad”) andNakajima et al. (US 2009/0216973 Al, pub. Aug. 27, 2009, “Nakajima”). Final Act. 5—13.2 The Examiner has rejected claims 16 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsao, Prahlad, Nakajima, and McGovern (US 2009/0024663 Al, pub. Jan. 22, 2009). Final Act 13-14. 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed July 19, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief, filed November 16 2016 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 16, 2016 (“Answer”), and the Final Office Action, mailed March 1, 2016 (“Final Act”). 2 Appeal 2017-003660 Application 14/378,419 The Examiner has rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsao, Prahlad, Nakajima, and Zaitsev (US 2011/0219049 Al, pub. Sept. 8, 2011). Final Act 15-16. The Examiner has rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsao, Prahlad, Nakajima, and Benavides (US 2010/0138619 Al, pub. June 3, 2010). Final Act 16—17. ANALYSIS Appellant argues on pages 4 through 10 of the Appeal Brief the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 10, 20, and 25 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Tsao, Prahlad, and Nakajima teaches a user interface for accessing storage pools allocated to a user which provides a erase function to erase the storage pool allocated to the user. Appellants’ arguments persuade us of error. The Examiner relies upon Prahlad to teach the disputed limitation. Answer 8, Final Act. 6. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Prahlad teaches a graphical user interface through which users and system processes can retrieve information about the status of storage operations. Answer 8, Final Act. 6 (citing Prahlad Figure 2 and para. 88). Further, the Examiner finds that the user interface includes an erase function. Final Act. 6 (citing Prahlad Figure 2 and para. 94). We have reviewed the teachings of Prahlad cited by the Examiner and disagree that they teach the claimed user interface for accessing storage pools allocated to a user, which provides an erase function to erase the storage pool allocated to the user. As argued by Appellant, Prahlad does not 3 Appeal 2017-003660 Application 14/378,419 teach the delete function, discussed in Prahlad’s paragraph 94, is accessed through the user interface, discussed in paragraph 88. App. Br. 8. Further, the Examiner has not explained how Prahlad’s delete function discussed in paragraph 94 relates to erasing the storage pool allocated to the user as claimed. Accordingly, on the record before us, the Examiner has not presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that the disputed feature of the independent claims is obvious. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 11, 20, and 25 and dependent claims 12 through 15, 19, 21, 23, and 24. The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 16, 17, 18, and 22 similarly rely upon the same findings for the limitations of independent claims 11 and 20. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 16, 17, 18, and 22 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 11 and 20. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11 through 25 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation