Ex Parte Kamat

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2015

12022016 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARUTI HARIDAS KAMAT1
____________________

Appeal 2012-011010
Application 12/022,016
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 6–8, 11–13, 17, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention is directed to a data processing system and
method. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject
matter:

1Appellant identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the
real party in interest.
Appeal 2012-011010
Application 12/022,016
2
1. A method of storing an object in a multimedia message
database, the method comprising:
maintaining a respective free space map (FSM) for each
of a plurality of data files, wherein a data storage block of one
of said plurality of data files is equally sized with any other data
storage block of said one of said plurality of data files, and
wherein the size of said data storage block of a first of said
plurality of data file is different than the size of said data
storage block of a second of said plurality of data files;
determining said size of said data storage block based on
a specified maximum percentage of allowed wasted space;
determining a location of free space in one of said
plurality of data files from said respective free space map;
storing at least part of the object at the location in said
one of said plurality of data files;
updating said respective free space map to indicate that
the location is no longer free; and
updating the multimedia message database to indicate the
location of the object in said one of said plurality of data files.

Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 7,
12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hwang et al.
(US 2007/0226219 A1; Sept. 27, 2007), Dodge et al. (US 2008/0052329 A1;
Feb. 28, 2008), and Wei-Khing et al., Adaptive Extents-Based File System
for Object-Based Storage Devices, 14th NASA Goddard, 23rd IEEE
(MSST2006) Conference on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies, May
15–18, 2006. Specifically, Appellant argues the following:
a) Dodge teaches away from the claim limitations that require
determining the size of a data storage block based on a specified maximum
percentage of allowed wasted space because Dodge teaches that block sizes
are dependent on the type of data to be stored (App. Br. 9–10);
Appeal 2012-011010
Application 12/022,016
3
b) Wei-Khing teaches away from the claim limitations that require
determining the size of a data storage block based on a specified maximum
percentage of allowed wasted space because Wei-Khing teaches that users
can configure three sizes of blocks based on their expected workloads and
that using larger blocks provides a higher throughput (App. Br. 10–12);
c) Dodge teaches away from Wei-Khing in view of their respective
disclosures (App. Br. 12–13); and
d) the “inode bitmap,” “hole map,” and “bitmap area” disclosed in
Hwang, Dodge, and Wei-Khing, respectively, do not teach or suggest
“maintaining a respective free space map (FSM) for each of a plurality of
data files,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 15.
2. For the same reasons argued with respect to claim 1, Appellant
argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 13 as being
unpatentable over Hwang, Dodge, Wei-Khing, and Lyle et al. (US 6,651,073
B1; Nov. 18, 2003).
3. For the same reasons argued with respect to claim 1, Appellant
argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 17 as being
unpatentable over Hwang, Dodge, Wei-Khing, and Ijdens et al. (US
6,934,700 B1; Aug. 23, 2005).
4. For the same reasons argued with respect to claim 1, Appellant
argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 as being unpatentable
over Dodge and Wei-Khing.
5. For the same reasons argued with respect to claim 1, Appellant
argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 as being unpatentable
over Dodge, Wei-Khing, and Lyle.

Appeal 2012-011010
Application 12/022,016
4
Issues
1. Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Hwang, Dodge, and Wei-Khing teaches or suggests “determining said size
of said data storage block based on a specified maximum percentage of
allowed wasted space,” as required by claim 1? See App. Br. 8.
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Hwang,
Dodge, and Wei-Khing teach or suggest maintaining a respective free space
map (FSM) for each of a plurality of data files, as required by claim 1? See
App. Br. 15

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the record in light of each of Appellant’s arguments
that the Examiner erred in finding claims 1, 2, 6–8, 11–13, 17, and 18
obvious in view of the cited prior art. See App. Br. 8–22; Reply 2–4. For
each of Appellant’s arguments and contentions, the Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response supported by evidence based on the teachings of
the cited art. Ans. 4–19.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive and adopt as our own (1)
the findings, conclusions, and reasons set for by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons explained in the
Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 4–19. We highlight the following for emphasis.

1. The combination of Hwang, Dodge, and Wei-Khing teaches or
suggests “determining said size of said data storage block based on a
specified maximum percentage of allowed wasted space.”

Hwang teaches a method of managing data storage using an algorithm
to optimize the selection of blocks in which a data file will be stored.
Appeal 2012-011010
Application 12/022,016
5
Hwang ¶ 33 (“A disk allocation algorithm defined by the user may be used
to determine in which block among the free blocks the requested file data is
to be stored.”). Hwang is not specific or limiting regarding the variables or
factors that can be included when a user seeks to optimize the allocation
algorithm. See, e.g., Hwang ¶ 61 (explaining that traditional file systems
can be improved when the user is free to design a disk allocation algorithm
to optimize the file system). According to the Examiner, one such factor
that could improve the allocation algorithm in Hwang is the wasted-free-
space data-allocation scheme taught by Wei-Khing. See Ans. 7, 17 (citing
Wei-Khing § 4.6.1); see also Wei-Khing, Abstract (proposing “a wasted free
space data allocation scheme” as one part of an improvement to traditional
file systems).
Wei-Khing teaches a data allocation scheme in which data is allocated
to different regions “based on their wasted disk space.” Wei-Khing, § 4.6.1.
Appellant argues, though, that Wei-Khing teaches away from allocation
based on a specified maximum percentage of allowable wasted space
because Wei-Khing states that one factor that improves disk performance is
a reduction in the number of blocks used to store a given file. App. Br. 10–
11; Reply 2–3.
Wei-Khing teaches generally the principle that wasted space should
be considered in data allocation and, additionally, that when two different
allocations result in the same amount of wasted space, disk performance can
be further optimized by selecting the allocation that uses fewer blocks. Wei-
Khing, § 4.6.1. That Wei-Khing teaches multiple ways to improve data
allocation does not constitute a “teaching away,” and we find unpersuasive
Appellant’s argument. See, e.g., In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed.
Appeal 2012-011010
Application 12/022,016
6
Cir. 2004) (mere disclosure of more than one alternative in the prior art does
not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives).
We also find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that Dodge teaches
away from the claimed invention because Dodge discloses a system in which
file type is considered in data allocation. App. Br. 12–13. The Examiner
cited Dodge as a disclosure of a system in which some data storage blocks
have the same size while other blocks have different sizes. Ans. 6. We find
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this general
disclosure of background-level information is not limited by Dodge’s further
suggestion that file types can be another factor useful in data-allocation
schemes. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (explaining the role of the background knowledge of a person of
ordinary skill in the art in an obviousness analysis).
We similarly find unpersuasive Appellant’s suggestion that Dodge
teaches away from Wei-Khing such that it is not appropriate to combine
Dodge with Wei-Khing. App. Br. 12–13. As noted above, and as found by
the Examiner, Dodge is not limited to the embodiment argued by Appellant.
See Ans. 17–18 (citing, e.g., Dodge ¶ 33 (disclosing alternative storage
processes). Further, Wei-Khing also discloses data blocks having different
sizes. See, e.g., Wei-Khing § 4.2 (“different regions may have different
sizes of blocks”). We therefore find nothing in Dodge or Wei-Khing that
would teach away or prevent a person of ordinary skill in the art from
combining the teachings of Dodge and Wei-Khing.

Appeal 2012-011010
Application 12/022,016
7
2. The combination of Hwang, Dodge, and Wei-Khing teaches or
suggests “maintaining a respective free space map (FSM) for each of
a plurality of data files.”

Without addressing the definition or scope of the term “free space
map” in claim 1, Appellant argues that the “inode bitmap,” “hole map,” and
“bitmap area” disclosed in Hwang, Dodge, and Wei-Khing, respectively, do
not teach or suggest the “free space map” limitation. App. Br. 15; Reply 3–
4. Appellant’s Specification states the following about a free space map file:
The free space map (FSM) file 412 contains as many bytes as
there are blocks in the data file 406. Each byte in the FSM file
412 corresponds to one of the blocks in the data file 406 in the
corresponding location. . . . The bytes of the FSM file 412
indicate whether the corresponding block in the data file 406 is
free space or whether the block contains data. . . . As the
location of a byte in the FSM file 412 indicates the location of
the corresponding block, then the data in the metadata table 410
indicating the location of a byte in the FSM file 412 can be used
to determine the location of the corresponding block in the
dat[a] file 406.

Specification at 3–4. Similarly, Hwang teaches that the location of free
space on a disk is maintained and tracked in database files. Hwang ¶¶ 41–
43. Further, the “Background” section of Hwang generally describes prior
art techniques for mapping free space and evidences that mapping the
location of available free space on a storage disk is part of the background
knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention. See Hwang ¶¶ 6–12 and 41–43; accord Dodge ¶ 26
(describing allocation of a one hole map for use as a bitmap representation
of the storage areas of data storage).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Hwang, Dodge, and Wei-Khing teaches the limitation “maintaining a
Appeal 2012-011010
Application 12/022,016
8
respective free space map (FSM) for each of a plurality of data files”
required by claim 1. Further, having considered all of the arguments raised
in Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we conclude Appellant has not
raised any persuasive arguments that the Examiner erred in concluding claim
1 is obvious in view of the combination of Hwang, Dodge, and Wei-Khing.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Further, Appellant
did not raise any independent, persuasive arguments regarding claims 2, 6–8,
11–13, 17, and 18, and we therefore also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
those claims for the reasons set forth above.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, 6–8, 11–13, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the cited
prior art.
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

tj