Ex Parte Hughes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

11202697 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

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.
11/202,697 08/12/2005 David Anthony Hughes PA3147US 8987
22830 7590 09/17/2012
CARR & FERRELL LLP
120 CONSTITUTION DRIVE
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
EXAMINER
AYASH, MARWAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte DAVID ANTHONY HUGHES
________________

Appeal 2010-003954
Application 11/202,697
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and GLENN J. PERRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003954
Application 11/202,697

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The application now before us is the parent of U.S. Continuation
Application 11/240,110 for which we decided Appeal No. 2010-003830.
Appellant seeks our review
1
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection
2
of claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-26, 29 and 31-34. Claims 2, 13-14,
16, 27-28, and 30 have been cancelled.
3
We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to network memory and network
memory architecture (Spec. par. [0001]) that address the problem of limited
network bandwidth between central and branch offices (Spec. par. [0005]).
A network memory “appliance” at a “source-site” intercepts data to be
transferred over the network and bound for a “destination-site.” It
determines whether the en-route data are locally available to the destination.
If so, it stops the data transmission. In place of the actual data, it issues an
“instruction” that causes a “destination-site” network memory appliance to
obtain the locally available data and provide them to a “destination-site
computer,” thereby relieving the network of transferring data. See spec. par.
[0017].
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized.

1
Notice of Appeal filed May 5, 2009
2
Final Office Action mailed January 12, 2009
3
“The Status of the Claims” at page 4 of the Appeal Brief incorrectly lists
the cancelled claims as “2, 13-14, and 27-28.” See “Claims Appendix”. We
view this as harmless error.
Appeal 2010-003954
Application 11/202,697

3

1. A network memory system comprising:
a source-site appliance comprising a first processor and a first
memory device, and configured to be coupled to a source-site computer via a
source-site local area network; and
a destination-site appliance comprising a second processor and a
second memory device, and configured to be coupled to a destination-site
computer via a destination-site local area network, the source-site computer
in communication with the destination-site computer via a wide area
network;
wherein the source-site appliance configured to identify locally
accessible data of the destination-site appliance, to intercept transmitted
data sent from the source-site computer and directed to the destination site
computer, to perform a determination of whether a portion of the
transmitted data corresponds to the locally accessible data of the
destination-site appliance, to generate an instruction based on the
determination, and to send the instruction to the destination-site appliance
over the wide area network; and
wherein the destination-site appliance configured to receive the
instruction from the source-site appliance over the wide area network, to
process the instruction to obtain the transmitted data locally if the
transmitted data corresponds to the locally accessible data of the destination-
site appliance, and to transfer the transmitted data to the destination-site
computer.

Evidence Considered
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Chang US 2004/0117571 A1 June 17, 2004
Straube US 7,200,847 B2 Apr. 3, 2007

The Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-26, 29 and 31-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang and Straube. Ans. 4.

Appeal 2010-003954
Application 11/202,697

4

I.
Appellant Contentions
Appellant argues that Chang and Straube do not teach or render
obvious an appliance configured to intercept data sent from a source-site
computer and directed to a destination-site computer. Br. 14-23. Appellant
also argues that the combination of Chang and Straube does not teach or
make obvious a destination appliance configured to receive an instruction
and process the instruction to obtain the transmitted data locally. Br. 24-26.

Examiner Findings
4

The Examiner finds that the disputed limitation encompasses the logic
elements shown in Chang figure 2, reproduced below, in addition to
externally connected processor/memory devices (not shown in Chang) that
work in cooperation with those logic elements per Chang paragraphs [0009]
and [0016].

4
The Examiner’s “objections” are not appealable but petitionable to the
Director. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403 (CCPA 1971).
Appeal 2010-003954
Application 11/202,697

5

Chang’s Figure 2 is a diagram of a replication system 200 within a cluster
node. The figure shows “in-memory object” 205 coupled to “replication
logic” 210, “current object state” 215 coupled to “replication logic” 210 and
“previously replicated object state” 220 coupled to “current object state”
215. “Difference logic” 225 compares outputs of “previously replicated
object state” 220 and “current object state” 215.

The Examiner reasons that system 200 includes several “logic”
elements (e.g. 210, 225, 230, and 240). According to paragraphs [0009] and
[0016] of Chang, each replication system of each node may include any
number of externally connected processor/memory devices that work in a
cooperative capacity with the elements depicted in Chang figure 2. Ans. 3.
The Examiner interprets Chang figure 2 as showing that in-memory object
205 is intercepted by logic elements (possibly node-external
processor/memory devices according to paragraphs [0009] and [0016] of
Chang) on its way from a source server/node to other destination
servers/nodes. Ans. 4-6.
Appeal 2010-003954
Application 11/202,697

6
The Examiner interprets the word “intercept” in accordance with the
plain-English definition of the verb “(to) intercept” to mean the stopping or
catching of an object (data in the instant case) on its way from one place to
another. The Examiner attached a dictionary definition to an office action.
Accordingly, the Examiner found that data object 205 (Chang Figure 2) is
caught/stopped and analyzed/ processed by several functional units (210,
225, 230, 235) as it makes its way from a source server/node to a destination
server/node. Ans. 9.

Analysis
We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term
“intercept.” Data cannot be “intercepted” and a portion of it compared with
what is available at the intended destination site unless that which is
intercepted and used for comparison was already in the course of
transmission. We disagree, however, that the limitation at issue involving
data intercept is met by Chang.
Appellant argues that Chang and Straube do not teach or make
obvious an appliance configured to intercept data sent from a source-site
computer and directed to a destination-site computer. Br. 14.
According to Appellant, Chang discloses a clustered processing
system in which replication logic controls replication of objects to one or
more replica states. Br. 16. Chang Figure 1, reproduced below, shows an
example system diagram of one embodiment of a clustered system having a
replication system in accordance with the Chang invention.
.

Appeal 2010-003954
Application 11/202,697

7

Appellant explains that Chang discloses "a clustered processing
system [in which] replication logic controls replication of objects to one or
more replica states.” App. Br. 16 citing to Chang, Abstract. Chang indicates
that "a cluster is a group of independent servers or nodes 105 that
collaborate as a single system." App. Br. 16 citing to Chang, [0020]
(Emphasis in original.) "[C]luster components may include one or more
processor nodes such as servers 1-n, a cluster interconnect (private network)
that provides node-to-node communication, and a storage subsystem." Id.
Servers such as “Server A” and “Server B” shown in Chang figure 1
Appeal 2010-003954
Application 11/202,697

8
maintain “replica states” of objects. See Chang figure 1. As Appellant
notes, when a replica state is not up to date, "[d]ifference logic determines
difference values between the current state and the previously replicated
state" in a given server in the cluster. Once the difference values are
determined, "[t]he differences are then transmitted to the other servers in the
cluster where each will update its version of the replica state with the
differences." App. Br. 17 citing Chang, [0007] and [0026]. Appellant
argues that because only differences are transmitted and the differences are
not available at the destination, no data are being intercepted and no
determination is being made as to whether data already transmitted are
available at a destination-site. App. Br. 17-18. We agree with Appellant.
The disputed limitation requires more than Chang’s local replication of
objects by Chang’s “replication logic 210” shown in Chang figure 2.
The Examiner finds that the replication system depicted in Chang
figure 2 comprises several 'logic' elements. According to Chang pars.
[0009] and [0016], each replication system of each node may comprise any
number of externally connected processor/memory devices that work in
cooperation with the elements depicted in Chang figure 2. Ans. 4. The
Examiner further finds that since Chang's invention operates according to a
push-model, each node must be configured to make itself aware of locally
accessible data of the other nodes in order to generate useful replication
instructions. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner’s logic is that replication instructions
are intercepted by logic elements (possibly node-external processor/memory
devices) on the way to other servers/nodes, to perform a determination of
whether a portion of the transmitted data corresponds to the locally
accessible data at the destination-site. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2010-003954
Application 11/202,697

9
We agree with the position of Appellant on the teachings of Chang, as
expressed below:
"each time the in-memory object 205 is to be replicated,
serializing logic [e.g., replication logic 210] serializes the data
and stores the serialized form as a current object state 215."
Chang, [0029]. "To determine the delta object or modified
portions of the current object state 215, difference logic 225
analyzes the data between the current state 215 and the
previously replicated state 220." Chang, [0031]. "The
differences between the previous state 220 and current state 215
are identified and copied as a set of difference data 235 which is
transmitted for replication to other nodes in the cluster" such as
by communication logic 240. Id.

See App. Br. 18.
The stated functions or operations described in connection with
Chang’s figure 2 do not constitute interception of data sent from one node of
a computer to another. Rather, difference data are determined and
transmitted from one node to another. As such, there is no interception of
data and no local retrieval of data intercepted. We therefore do not sustain
the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims.
In view of the corresponding limitations in independent claims 15 and
29, we likewise do not sustain the rejection of those claims and their
respective dependent claims.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-26,
29 and 31-34 under § 103.

Appeal 2010-003954
Application 11/202,697

10
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-26,
29 and 31-34 is reversed.

REVERSED

ak