Ex Parte Katagiri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

13692830 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/692,830 12/03/2012
50548 7590
ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM
1155 N. 1st St.
Suite 105
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
09/26/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Takashi Katagiri
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
IBM1P283/JP9201 l 0062US 1 5866
EXAMINER
MATIN, TASNIMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKASHI KATAGIRI, YURKO MORI,
HIROKAZUNAKAYAMA, and YUTAKA OISHI 1
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, HUNG H. BUI, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the applicant, International Business Machines Corporation,
identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
Invention
The inventors disclose a "method for detecting at a migration
destination medium a change in data during media migration between write
once read many (WORM) media." Abstract.
Representative Claim ( disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A storage device for generating and recording metadata in a
migration destination medium, the metadata being for enabling
detection of a change in data during media migration between write
once read many (WORM) media, the device comprising:
a controller comprising:
logic configured to write data for WORM from a migration
source medium to a migration destination medium;
logic configured to hold an identifier (ID) of the source medium
and any IDs of previous source media stored to the source
medium in a non-user storage area in the destination medium,
the ID of the source medium differentiating the source medium
from other media including the destination medium;
logic configured to hold first feature information of the data as
stored on the source medium in the non-user storage area,
wherein the first feature information is not recorded in the non-
user storage area in response to a determination that tampering
has occurred during migration of the data from the source
medium to the destination medium, wherein the first feature
information indicates one or more features of the data as stored
on the source medium; and
logic configured to hold migrated data feature information of
any previous data as stored on the previous source media in the
non-user storage area.
Supp. Appeal Br. 2 (Mar. 8, 2017). 2
2 All citations to the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") contained herein are to the
original Appeal Brief filed January 9, 2017. Citations to one of the
Supplemental Appeal Briefs ("Supp. Appeal Br."), filed February 9, 2017,
and March 8, 2017, identify the pertinent brief by date.
2
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Peake (US 5,809,511; issued Sept. 15, 1998) and
Jaquette et al. (US 2008/0063198 Al; published Mar. 13, 2008) ("Jaquette").
Final Act. 3-8.
The Examiner rejects claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Peake, Jaquette, and Higashiura et al.
(US 2002/0002561 Al; published Jan. 3, 2002) ("Higashiura"). Final Act.
8-13.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Action from which this appeal was taken
and, to the extent they are directed to Appellant's timely arguments, in the
Answer. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
CLAIM 1
Findings and Contentions
Peake teaches a data migration system in which identifiers "associated
with blocks of the data are obtained from the source tape media" (Peake col.
5, 11. 34--35) and "written to the target cartridge [where] each data block and
corresponding identifier is written to the target cartridge in a predetermined
relationship to each other" (id. col. 8, 11. 29-31 ).
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Peake's migration of the
identifiers from a source media to a target media teaches or suggests logic
configured to hold an identifier (ID) of the source medium and any IDs of
previous source media stored to the source medium in the destination
3
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
medium. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Peake Figs. 1, 3, col. 2, 11. 46-57, col. 5, 11.
32--41, col. 6, 11. 5-20, 43---60, col. 8, 11. 25-28). The Examiner finds that
Peake' s storage of identifiers as metadata teaches or suggests storing them in
a non-user storage area. See Ans. 15 ("Peake teaches storing media id and
other metadata .... Metadata is not user accessible"). However, the
Examiner acknowledges this teaching is not clear, and, as such, relies on
Jaquette's non-user areas 15, 16 to render obvious storing Peake's identifiers
in a non-user storage area. Final Act. 5 (citing Jaquette Figs. 2, 6, ,r,r 7, 16,
23); see also Ans. 15.
Peake further teaches that "cache manager 112 maintains directory
and other information necessary to store data on virtual tape cartridges."
Peake col. 6, 11. 5-8. "When data is migrated from the cache 106 to the
library 108, the cache manager 112 provides the library 108 with the virtual
cartridge's associated data to be migrated, along with each virtual cartridge's
identifier." Id. col. 6, 11. 13-17. "[C]ache manager 112 also provides the
catalog 128 with information about the location of the migrated data in the
automated tape library." Id. col. 6, 11. 17-19.
The Examiner finds that Peake' s maintenance of metadata in the form
of directory and other needed information teaches or suggests logic
configured to hold migrated data feature information of any previous data
as stored on the previous source media in the non-user storage area. Final
Act. 5 (citing Peake Figs. 1, 4, col. 6, 11. 5-20, 40---60, col. 8, 11. 1-10); see
also Ans. 16 (further citing Peake Fig. 3, col. 2, 11. 31-55, col. 5, 11. 32--41).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because although "Peake
teaches identifiers of data blocks .... the claim requires an 'identifier (ID)
of the source medium."' Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 5. Appellant
4
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
argues, "Peake is not concerned with which source media have data stored
on a particular tape medium, and therefore does not teach or suggest storing
an ID of previous tape media to a current tape medium." Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant further argues that "Peake fails to teach a non-user storage area in
the destination medium" (id. at 13) and that Jaquette merely "teaches storing
encryption encapsulated data keys (EEDK) on the ... non-user storage
areas" (id. at 14). See also Reply Br. 6-7. Appellant also argues the
Examiner's findings are insufficient because "the Examiner has not alleged
that Peake in view of Jaquette teach[es] that 'migrated data feature
information of any previous data as stored on the previous source media' is
stored 'in the non-user storage area."' Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 7.
Analysis
We agree with the Examiner that Peake' s writing of identifiers
associated with blocks of data to a target cartridge teaches or suggests logic
configured to hold an identifier (ID) of the source medium and any IDs of
previous source media stored to the source medium in the destination
medium. See Final Act. 3--4 ( citing, e.g., Peake col. 5, 11. 32--41, col. 8,
11. 25-28). Appellant argues Peake merely teaches data block identifiers, but
"is not concerned with which source media have stored on a particular tape
medium." Appeal Br. 12. However, Peake's identifiers "are obtained from
the source tape media" (Peake col. 5, 11. 34--35; see also id. col. 2, 11. 55-57)
and "may be imprinted externally on the [source] tape cartridge's housing"
(id. col. 5, 11. 46--48). Thus, Peake teaches or suggests data block identifiers
that also identify the source medium. Furthermore, Peake teaches writing
the identifier to a target cartridge. Id. col. 8, 11. 28-29. As the Examiner
correctly notes, Peake' s logic for writing data from a migration source to a
5
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
migration destination includes writing data and associated identifiers in
substantially continuous form on the target media. See Final Act. 3 ( citing,
e.g., Peake Fig. 4, col. 2, 11. 40-57). Therefore, the Examiner's findings
show that Peake's migration logic and identifiers teach or suggest logic that
holds the identifier of the source medium and any identifiers of previous
source media (i.e., those that would have been written in substantially
continuous form with the data in a previous migration) in the destination
medium.
We also agree with the Examiner that Peake' s writing of identifiers as
part of a library or catalog teaches or suggests holding of the identifiers in a
non-user storage area. Ans. 15. In particular, Appellant fails to rebut the
Examiner's findings that use of a non-user storage area encompasses storage
as user-inaccessible metadata. Id. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner
that Jaquette's teachings of "non-user data areas" also teaches or suggests
holding the claimed identifiers in a non-user storage area. See Final Act. 5
(citing Jaquette Figs. 2, 6, ,r,r 7, 16, 23). Although Appellant argues Jaquette
merely "teaches storing encryption encapsulated data keys (EEDK) on the
... non-user storage areas" (Appeal Br. 14), the Examiner's findings show
that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill that other data,
such as Peake's identifiers, could be stored in such non-user storage areas
(see, e.g., Final Act. 5). Appellant argues that the use of Jaquette's non-user
storage areas would not have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill
without reliance on impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 16. However, we
agree with the Examiner that the use of a non-user storage area ( as taught or
suggested by Jaquette) to store non-user data such as a Peake's identifiers
6
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill at the time of the
invention. See Ans. 15.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Peake and Jaquette teaches or suggests "logic configured to hold an
identifier (ID) of the source medium and any IDs of previous source media
stored to the source medium in a non-user storage area in the destination
medium," as recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Peake teaches or
suggests logic configured to hold migrated data feature information of any
previous data as stored on the previous source media in the non-user
storage area, as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellant submits the
Examiner fails to allege Peake, even in combination with Jaquette, teaches
or suggests "that 'migrated data feature information of any previous data as
stored on the previous source media' is stored 'in the non-user storage
area."' Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 7. However, the Examiner
presents sufficient findings directed to showing the combination of Peake
and Jaquette teaches or suggests the disputed recitation. See, e.g., Final Act.
5 (citing Peake Figs. 1, 4, col. 6, 11. 5-20, 40-60, col. 8, 11. 1-10).
Specifically, the Examiner maps Peake' s information about the location of
migrated data to the claimed "migrated data feature information of any
previous data as stored on the previous source media." Final Act. 5. The
Examiner further finds that this data, being metadata, is stored in a non-user
storage area. Id. Appellant's arguments fail to distinguish the claimed
migrated data feature information from Peake' s "information about the
location of the migrated data in the automated tape library." Peake col. 6, 11.
18-19 (cited in Final Act. 4). Appellant also fails to rebut with persuasive
7
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
arguments or evidence the Examiner's conclusion that the claimed non-user
storage area encompasses stored metadata. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Peake and Jaquette teaches or suggests
"logic configured to hold migrated data feature information of any previous
data as stored on the previous source media in the non-user storage area," as
recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1.
CLAIMS 2, 4--7, and 10-15
Findings and Contentions
In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner relies on Higashiura's use of a
sweep history file to render obvious modifying the combined teachings and
suggestions of Peake and Jaquette to include logic configured to check
whether second feature information of the data as stored on the destination
medium, the ID of the source medium, and the IDs of previous source media
match the first feature information, the ID of the source medium, and the IDs
of previous source media held in the non-user storage area. Final Act. 9
(citing Higashiura Figs. 18, 24, ,r,r 13, 75-76, and 104--105). The Examiner
concludes this modification would have been obvious to an artisan of
ordinary skill as a way "to utilize [a] more efficient approach [to] data
management." Final Act. 10 ( citing Higashiura ,r,r 4--5).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred by alleging "nothing more
than common subject matter or field of invention to support the supposed
reasonable motivation to combine/modify" Peake, Jaquette, and Higashiura
in the proffered manner. Appeal Br. 30; see also Reply Br. 10-11.
Appellant further argues the combination with Higashiura would change the
8
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
principle of operation of Peake, in view of Jaquette, by requiring the store of
"data in an electronic library remote from the tape cartridges" rather than on
"tape storage." Appeal Br. 30; see also Reply Br. 11.
Analysis
Appellant's argument (Appeal Br. 30) unpersuasively fails to address
the Examiner's proffered and fully articulated reason why the combination
would have been obvious (Final Act. 10). The Examiner further concludes
"use of [an] electronic library in place of tape storage [was] known in the
art." Ans. 18. Appellant quotes extensively from Higashiura (Reply Br. 10-
11) before contending Higashiura "is not concerned with tracking which
medium a document comes from, just whether the document is original or
not" (id. at 11 ). However, Appellant fails to show error in the Examiner's
explanation as to why it would have been obvious to modify Peake and
J aquette in view of Higashiura.
Appellant's argument that Higashiura would have changed the
principle of operation of Peake and Jaquette (Appeal Br. 30) is also
unpersuasive. Appellant argues Peake and Jaquette would have to be
modified to "store data in an electronic library" rather than using tapes. Id.
However, Appellant fails to show with persuasive arguments or evidence
that using tapes is the principle of operation of Peake and Jaquette. Id.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness (Final Act. 8-10) and sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 2, and claims 4--7, which Appellant argues
together with claim 2. See Appeal Br. 29.
Appellant makes similar arguments with respect to claims 10-15. See
Appeal Br. 36-38; Reply Br. 13. For the reasons discussed above, we also
9
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
find these arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, we also sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 10-15.
CLAIM3
Most of Appellant's arguments with respect to claim 3 are
substantially similar (see Appeal Br. 32-33; Reply Br. 9-11) to those made
with respect to claim 2 (see Appeal Br. 29-31 ), and are similarly
unpersuasive. Appellant further argues the Examiner neglected to address
the limitation directed to "'the non-user storage area in the destination
medium is located on the destination medium in a location to prevent
rewriting."' See id. at 31-32. However, claim 3 has no such recitation. See
Supp. Appeal Br. 3 (Mar. 8, 2017). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 3.
CLAIM 8
Findings and Contentions
In the originally filed Appeal Brief, Appellant makes the same
arguments with respect to claim 8 (see Appeal Br. 34--36) that Appellant
makes with respect to claim 3 (see id. at 31-33). Appellant further argues,
for the first time in the first Supplemental Appeal Brief that "Peake fails to
teach or suggest that feature information is assigned during migration.
Instead, Peake seems to allude to feature information previously existing,
and not being changed during migration." Supp. Appeal Br. 28 (Feb. 9,
2017); see also Reply Br. 12.
Analysis
Most of Appellant's arguments with respect to the Examiner's
rejection of claim 8, and set forth in the originally filed Appeal Brief, are
10
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the
Examiner's rejection of claim 3. In particular, the recitation Appellant
argues the Examiner neglects (Appeal Br. 34) does not existing in claim 8
(Supp. Appeal Br. 4 (Mar. 8, 2017)). For the same reasons discussed above,
we do not find these arguments persuasive of error.
Appellant presents additional, new arguments with respect to claim 8
in the first Supplemental Appeal Brief. Supp. Appeal Br. 27-28 (Feb. 9,
2017). However, this Supplemental Appeal Brief was filed more than two
months after the November 10, 2016, Notice of Appeal filing. These
arguments, along with the Examiner's response to them (Ans. 18) and
Appellant's Reply (Reply Br. 12), will not be considered because
Appellant's new arguments are untimely.
The Appeal Brief must be filed "within two months from the date of
filing the notice of appeal." 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(a) (2016). "[A]ny arguments
... not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the
Board for purposes of the ... appeal." 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
Appellant may be able to file "a supplemental brief or document if new
authority should become available or relevant after the brief or reply brief
was filed." Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (9th ed., rev. 07/2015)
1205.02.
Appellant's first Supplemental Appeal Brief, filed February 9, 2017,
was filed nearly three months after the November 10, 2016, filing date for
the Notice of Appeal. The first Supplemental Appeal Brief was filed in
response to a notice that the original filed "Claims Appendix [ did] not match
the last entered Amendment filed 4/27/16, specifically claims" 3, 8, and 16.
Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief (Feb. 3, 2017). Appellant was
11
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
informed that "[ a ]n entire new Appeal Brief [was] not necessary only the
corrected section." Id.
The Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief allowed Appellant
to make necessary changes to apprise, accurately, 3 the Board of the state of
the claims. Id. This courtesy did not constitute an invitation or an
authorization for Appellant to introduce new arguments into the record past
the deadline under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(a). Moreover, the Notification did not
constitute a new authority--such a decision on a related case or a relevant
precedential, informative, or persuasive opinion from the Supreme Court of
the United States, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the Patent
Trial and Appeals Board-that might justify adding additional arguments to
the record after the two-month deadline.
Appellant did not request permission from the Board to introduce new
arguments nor did Appellant identify any reason why such permission
should be granted. Appellant also failed to call attention to the substantive
differences between the originally filed Appeal Brief and the first
Supplemental Appeal Brief.
Because Appellant failed to provide a reason for granting an
extension, we decline to extend the original deadline under 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(a) for Appellant to make arguments. Moreover, we decline to
consider the Examiner's unnecessary response to Appellant's untimely
arguments (Ans. 18) and to Appellant's subsequent reply (Reply Br 12).
3 Appellant failed in this regard, as evidenced by the subsequent Notification
of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief (Mar. 7, 2017) and final Supplemental
Appeal Brief (Mar. 8, 2017).
12
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
Because none of the timely arguments submitted by Appellant with
respect to claim 8 are persuasive of error, we affirm the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 8.
CLAIM9
Findings and Contentions
Claim 9 recites "holding information indicating a feature of the data in
the non-user storage area." The Examiner primarily relies on Peake's
teachings and suggestions with respect to claim 9. Final Act. 6-7.
However, the Examiner finds Jaquette's storage of encrypted data keys
outside a user data area to teach or suggest the claimed use of a non-user
storage area. Id. at 7 (citing Jaquette Figs. 2, 6, ,r,r 7, 16, 23). Alternatively,
the Examiner finds that "Peake teaches storing [a] media id and other
metadata in [a] tape library/catalog," where "Metadata is not user
accessible." Ans. 15.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because:
Jaquette does not teach that the "one or more non-user locations
on the tape cartridge" are utilized to promote efficiency; rather,
these areas are utilized for storage to allow for "encrypted data
keys to be re-written without also re-writing the user data" and
"one or more copies of the encrypted data key stored on the tape
cartridge outside of the user data area to be updated
independently of user data."
Appeal Br. 17 (citing Jaquette ,r 7). Appellant argues the Examiner
erroneously relies on impermissible hindsight reasoning and fails to provide
a "rationale as to how one of skill would be motivated to utilize Jaquette's
alleged non-user area to store migrated data feature information of any
previous data as stored on the previous source media, as required by claim
9." Appeal Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 8.
13
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
Analysis
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument. As discussed above
with respect to claim 1, Appellant fails to show error in the Examiner's
finding that Peake alone teaches or suggests non-user accessible metadata.
See Ans. 15; Reply Br. 8. Moreover, Appellant merely argues the Examiner
erroneously concluded the proposed combination of Peake and Jaquette
would have been obvious "to promote efficiency" (Appeal Br. 17), but fails
to address the Examiner's conclusion of obvious based on considerations of
security (see Ans. 15; Reply Br. 8).
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness, and, as such, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 9.
CLAIMS 16, 17, 19, AND 20
Findings and Contentions
The Examiner rejects claim 16 for reasons similar to those provided
with respect to claims 1 and 9. Final Act. 8. Appellant contends the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16 for similar reasons the Examiner
contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 22-
28 with id. at 7-16. Appellant also contends the Examiner erred because
claims 1 and 9 do not have the recitation where "the 'total amount of the
data stored on the source medium or a hash value of the data stored on the
source medium' is held by the device in the non-user storage area" (id. at 27)
and that "the Examiner has not alleged that Peake in view of Jaquette
teach[es] 'hold[ing] feature information in the non-user storage area"' (id. at
28 (second alteration in original); see also Reply Br. 9).
14
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
Analysis
For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellant's
arguments with respect to the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 are
unpersuasive.
Appellant's argument that the Examiner's findings fail to address the
claim 16 recitation regarding the type of feature information held by the
device is unpersuasive because the Examiner specifically finds that Peake
teaches or suggests the disputed recitations. See Final Act. 10 ( citing Peake
Fig. 4, col. 6, 11. 5-19, col. 8, 11. 59---67). Although the Examiner makes the
findings regarding this recitation with respect to claim 3 rather than claim
16, the Examiner's findings are plainly relevant to the disputed recitations of
claim 16. Moreover, Appellant does not timely challenge these findings.
See Appeal Br. 31-32. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Peake, Jaquette, and Higashiura teaches or suggests a device
to hold "feature information in the non-user storage area, wherein the feature
information indicates one or more features of the data selected from a group
consisting of: a total amount of the data stored on the source medium or a
hash value of the data stored on the source medium," as recited in claim 16.
See Final Act. 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 16. Appellant's arguments with respect to dependent claims 17, 19,
and 20 are similar to Appellant's arguments with respect to claim 2.
Compare Appeal Br. 3 8--40 with id. at 29-31. Therefore, for the reasons
discussed above with respect to claims 2 and 16, we also sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 17, 19, and 20.
15
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
CLAIM 18
Findings and Contentions
In rejecting claim 18 as obvious, the Examiner finds Peake's use of
catalog "to maintain information about the location of the data stored within
the data storage subsystem" (Peake col. 4, 11. 56-57) teaches or suggests
"program code ... further readable/executable by the device to write a
migration completion flag to the destination medium in response to positive
determinations being obtained in all of the computer readable program code
configured for checking" (see Ans. 18-19 (citing Peake Fig. 4, col. 2, 1. 58-
col. 3, 1. 5, col. 4, 11. 50-60)).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "one of skill in the art
would understand a flag as not being the same as a catalog that tracks
migration information, particularly when the catalog described by Peake
fails to teach or suggest the use of a bit to indicate migration status, let alone
migration completion status as required by the claim." Reply Br. 14--15; see
also Appeal Br. 40-41. Appellant also argues, for reasons similar to those
proffered with respect to claim 2, that the Examiner erred in combining the
teachings and suggestions of Peake, Jaquette, and Higashiura. Compare
Appeal Br. 41--42 with id. at 29-31; see also Reply Br. 15.
Analysis
Appellant argues Peake' s catalog fails to teach or suggest the disputed
migration completion flag recitation because "the catalog described by
Peake fails to teach or suggest the use of a bit to indicate migration status."
Reply Br. 15. This argument, being circular (i.e., arguing the disputed
recitation is not taught or suggested by the art because the disputed recitation
is not taught or suggested by the art), fails to show error in the Examiner's
16
Appeal 2017-011342
Application 13/692,830
finding. Cf In re Chaganti, 554 F. App'x 917, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-
precedential) ("It is not enough to say that ... to do so would 'have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill.' Such circular reasoning is not sufficient-
more is needed to sustain an obviousness rejection."). Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Peake, Jaquette, and Higashiura
teaches or suggests "wherein the program code is further readable/
executable by the device to write a migration completion flag to the
destination medium in response to positive determinations being obtained in
all of the computer readable program code configured for checking," as
recited in claim 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
17