Ex Parte Hopkins

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2014

11518652 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DONALD F. HOPKINS
____________________

Appeal 2012-001759
Application 11/518,652
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001759
Application 11/518,652

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejections of
claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-29. Claims 2, 4, 9, 14, 16, and 20
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a transaction oriented resilient file system.
Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, in a file system in a computer, a file creation
instruction to create a first file version of a particular file;
creating, in the file system in the computer, a first virtual
block table for the first file version identified in the file creation
instruction;
mapping the first virtual block table to one or more
blocks of storage on physical media;
recording a file identifier for the particular file in a
directory entry maintained by the file system;
associating, in the directory entry, the first virtual block
table with the file identifier;
associating, in the directory entry, a transaction identifier
with the first file version, wherein the transaction identifier is to
uniquely identify a particular transaction;
receiving, in the file system, a request to update the first
file version to produce a second, different file version of the
particular file;
in response to the request to update, creating, in the file
system for the second file version, a second virtual block table
as a copy of the first virtual block table;
Appeal 2012-001759
Application 11/518,652

3
associating, in the directory entry, the second virtual
block table with the file identifier, wherein the directory entry
contains information for the first and second virtual block
tables;
recording changes to one or more blocks in the first file
version in one or more new file blocks on the physical media;
associating the one or more new file blocks with one or
more first entries in the second virtual block table.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Howard US 2002/0078244 A1 June 20, 2002
Baird US 7,257,689 B1 Aug. 14, 2007 (filed Oct. 15, 2004)
Giampaolo US 7,613,743 B1 Nov. 3, 2009 (filed June 10, 2005)

REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 22, 23, 25, and 27-29 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howard and
Giampaolo. Ans. 4-10.

1 Appellant argues the rejection of claim 1 and collectively argues the
rejection of claims 23, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Separate
patentability is not argued for claims 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 26,
28, and 29. “A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will
not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (last sentence). Further, merely restating with
respect to a second claim an argument, previously presented with respect to
a first claim, is not an argument for separate patentability of the two claims.
Therefore, based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of claims
1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 29 based on claim 1 alone
and the appeal of claims 23, 25, and 27 based on claim 23 alone. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2012-001759
Application 11/518,652

4
Claims 21, 24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Howard, Giampaolo, and Baird. Ans. 10-11.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. In connection with the rejection of claim 1, Appellant contends
Howard and Giampaolo do not show “associating, in the directory
entry, the second virtual block table with the file identifier.” App. Br.
11.
2. In connection with the rejection of claim 1, Appellant contends “in
view of the significant differences between the claimed subject matter
and the teachings of Howard and Giampaolo, no reason existed that
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the teachings of the references to achieve the subject matter of claim
1.” App. Br. 11-12.
3. In connection with the rejection of claim 23, Appellant contends “the
I-number of Howard clearly does not constitute a file name.” App.
Br. 13.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7-13)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-4), the issues presented on appeal are whether:
1. The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Howard and
Giampaolo teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of the
independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and dependent claims 23, 25, and 27.
2. The Examiner erred in combining Howard and Giampaolo.

Appeal 2012-001759
Application 11/518,652

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4-11) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 11-14) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.

Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29
Appellant contends the combination of Howard and Giampaolo
describes associating different file versions with different file identifiers, not
the same file identifier, and therefore, does not teach the limitation
“associating, in one directory entry, first and second virtual block tables with
the same file identifier, where such directory entry contains information for
the first and second virtual block tables.” App. Br. 11. Specifically,
Appellant asserts,
the “directory entry” of Giampaolo (equated by the Examiner
with the storage 105) associates different file versions with
different file identifiers – since the Examiner equated the
identification of storage blocks as being a “file identifier,” the
different versions of the data structure stored in the storage 105
are associated with different file identifiers.
App. Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues the combination of
Howard and Giampaolo teaches different identifiers, asserting “[t]he
Examiner’s Answer stated that the ‘global transaction identifier’ of
Giampaolo constitutes the ‘file identifier’ of claim 1.” Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-001759
Application 11/518,652

6
The Examiner finds the limitation “recording a file identifier for the
particular file in a directory entry maintained by the file system,” of claim 1
is taught by Howard’s description that a “file ID may be an ‘I-number’ . . .
where [a] ‘record’ in a ‘journal’ records [an] I-number along with the inode
data, and where journal represents a directory entry that maintains versions
of a created file.” Ans. 5. Furthermore, the Examiner finds the limitation
“associating, in the directory entry, the second virtual block table with the
file identifier, wherein the directory entry contains information for the first
and second virtual blocks tables” is taught by Giampaolo’s description of a
“data structure [that] identifies allocated storage blocks on one or more
storage media and where [a] second block table is associated with [a]
directory entry.” Ans. 6-7 (citation omitted). Additionally, the Examiner
finds “Giampaolo discloses that a global transaction identifier is associated
with at multiple versions of a particular file.” Ans. 12. The Examiner
further finds “Giampaolo modifies Howard by allowing information, in a
directory entry, to be associated with more than one virtual block table (i.e.,
first and second virtual block tables representing different versions of a
particular file).” Ans. 13.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Howard and
Giampaolo is proper and teaches or suggests to disputed limitations of
claim 1. In contrast to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner does not equate
the storage blocks of Giampaolo to the claimed file identifier, but instead
finds an “I-number” in Howard’s journal is a “file ID.” Ans. 5. Appellant
does not address or otherwise rebut this finding. The Examiner further finds
Giampaolo teaches modifying Howard’s directory such that the directory
entry (including an I-number or file ID) associates first and second virtual
Appeal 2012-001759
Application 11/518,652

7
block tables in the entry through “multiple versions of a particular file.”
Ans. 12. Appellant is arguing the teachings of Howard separately without
considering the combined teaching of Howard and Giampaolo. “Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In particular,
Appellant argues Giampaolo fails to teach the disputed file ID (App. Br. 11-
12), when the Examiner relies on Howard’s I-number, not Giampaolo’s
storage blocks, for teaching the disputed file ID. Contrary the Appellant’s
argument, the Examiner does not indicate the “global transaction identifier”
of Giampaolo is the file identifier. Instead, the Examiner finds that
Giampaolo describes a directory entry (Giampaolo’s “data structure”) that
has a single identifier associated with it. Therefore, having mischaracterized
the Examiner’s application of prior art, we find Appellant’s assertion that the
references do not teach or suggest the limitation “associating, in one
directory entry, first and second virtual block tables with the same file
identifier, where such directory entry contains information for the first and
second virtual block tables” is not persuasive of error.
Appellant further contends “in view of the significant differences
between the claimed subject matter and the teachings of Howard and
Giampaolo, no reason existed that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the references to achieve
the subject matter of claim 1.” App. Br. 11-12.
We do not agree. For the reasons supra, we do not find “significant
differences between the claimed subject matter and the teachings of Howard
Appeal 2012-001759
Application 11/518,652

8
and Giampaolo” (see App. Br. 11-12). The Examiner has articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal
conclusion of obviousness for making the combination of Howard and
Giampaolo (see Ans. 7 and 13), which Appellant does not address.
Additionally, “the test is what the combined teachings of those references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d
at 425 (citations omitted). Contrary to Appellant’s contention (see App. Br.
11-12), “[i]f a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed
invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports
use of that reference in an obviousness rejection.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appellant’s disclosure relates to avoiding damage to
files in a file system (see paragraph 3). Similarly, Howard (see paragraph 5)
and Giampaolo (see abstract) relate to avoiding file damage and corruption
and promoting reliable file systems. Accordingly, we find unpersuasive
Appellant’s argument that significant differences between the claimed
subject matter and the applied references render the combination of Howard
and Giampaolo improper.
Therefore, for the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claims 1, 8, and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Howard and Giampaolo. For the same
reasons, we further sustain the rejection dependent claims 3, 5-7, 10-13, 17-
19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 29, these dependent claims also not separately
argued.

Appeal 2012-001759
Application 11/518,652

9
Claims 23, 25, 27
Appellant contends “the I-number of Howard clearly does not
constitute a file name.” App. Br. 13. Appellant further asserts “an I-number
would not be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be a file
name.” Reply Br. 4. The Examiner finds “a file name represents a broad
concept of identifying a file with a unique identifier.” Ans. 14. The
Examiner further finds Howard discloses “associating a file name with file
ID” and “where file ID is associated with I-number.” Ans. 9.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant fails to explain why
Howard’s I-number is not equivalent to and/or fails to teach or suggest a file
name. Appellant’s Specification does not define file name, only indicating
that “file identifier 510 may be embodied as a file name.” Spec. ¶ 36. The
Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines a file name as “[t]he set of letters,
numbers, and allowable symbols assigned to a file to distinguish it from all
other files in a particular directory on a disk.”2 Therefore, in the absence of
sufficient argument or evidence to the contrary, we agree with the Examiner
that Howard’s file ID teaches or suggests a file name.
Therefore, for at least the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 23, 25, and
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Howard and Giampaolo.

2 Microsoft Computer Dictionary Microsoft Press 5th ed., p. 212 (2002).
Appeal 2012-001759
Application 11/518,652

10
CONCLUSIONS
We find
1. The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Howard and
Giampaolo teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of the
independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and dependent claims 23, 25, and 27.
2. The Examiner did not err in combining Howard and Giampaolo.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19,
and 21-29 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc