Ex Parte Kilday

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 21, 2015

11364959 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROGER W. KILDAY
____________

Appeal 2012-008779
Application 11/364,959
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–9, 12, 15–17, 20, 21, 24–27, and 29–36. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention organizes managed content for storage. To this
end, an object is linked to a set of objects based on an associated attribute.
The objects in the set are subject to a policy, a consequence of which is
common to a subset of the set. In one aspect, the consequence comprises
performing a disposal operation as a low-level erasure of disk contents. See
generally Abstract; ¶¶ 31, 34; Fig. 6. Claim 1 is illustrative:
Appeal 2012-008779
Application 11/364,959

2
1. A method for organizing managed content for storage,
comprising:
linking an object, based at least in part on an attribute of
the object, to a set of objects associated with the attribute,
wherein the objects in the set are subject to a
policy a consequence of which is common to at least a
subset of the set as determined based at least in part on
the attribute, and
wherein the consequence comprises performing a
disposal operation;
using a processor to store the object in a physical storage
location associated with the set,
wherein the physical storage location comprises a disk or
a disk partition in which objects having a common value for the
attribute or a value for the attribute that falls within a range of
values associated with the set are stored separately from other
objects having values for the attribute that are not the same as
the common value or not within the range of values associated
with the set as applicable; and
performing the disposal operation as a low level erasure
of the entire contents of the disk or disk partition without regard
to its logical contents.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–7, 9, 12, 15–17, 20, 21, 24–27, and
29–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cohasset Assoc., Inc.,
IBM DB2 Records Manager and Records-Enabled Solutions (2004)
(“Records Manager”) and Legato Sys., Inc., EMAILxtender 4.3 Technical
Product Overview (2002) (“EMAILxtender”). Ans. 5–27.1

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed October 17,
2011 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 16, 2012
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed May 15, 2012 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2012-008779
Application 11/364,959

3
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Records Manager, EMAILxtender, and Rowen
(US 2002/0122543 A1; Sept. 5, 2002). Ans. 27–28.

THE REJECTION OVER RECORDS MANAGER AND
EMAILXTENDER

Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Records Manager
discloses, among other things, (1) linking an object to a set of objects
associated with an attribute; (2) using a processor to store an object in a
physical location associated with a set of objects; and (3) performing a
disposal operation as a low-level erasure of the entire contents of a disk or
disk partition without regard to its logical contents, namely via Records
Manager’s bulk disposal actions. Ans. 5–7, 30. Although the Examiner
acknowledges that Records Manager does not store objects in disk or disk
partition according to the recited attribute-value-based storage criteria, the
Examiner cites EMAILxtender as teaching this feature in concluding that the
claim would have been obvious. Ans. 7–8, 29.
Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest
storing objects in a disk or disk partition according to the recited attribute-
value-based storage criteria. App. Br. 16–18; Reply Br. 5–8. According to
Appellant, neither the folders in Records Manager nor EMAILxtender’s
server, vault, cabinet, folder, or volume file constitute a disk or disk partition
as claimed. Id. Appellant adds that the Examiner’s reliance on Records
Manager’s bulk disposal actions for teaching the recited low-level erasure is
flawed because these actions are said to be directed to logical folders and
subfolders and, therefore, cannot be performed without regard to the logical
Appeal 2012-008779
Application 11/364,959

4
contents as claimed. App. Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant argues
various other recited limitations summarized below.

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Records Manager
and EMAILxtender collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1)(a) using a processor to store an object in a disk or disk partition
associated with a set of objects according to the recited attribute-value-based
storage criteria, and (b) performing a disposal operation as a low-level
erasure of the entire contents of the disk or disk partition without regard to
its logical contents as recited in claim 1?
(2) the physical storage location comprises a contiguous set of storage
devices as recited in claim 24?
(3) the physical storage location comprises a set of storage devices to
which at least some common processing applies to a member of the set as
recited in claim 25?
(4) the disk portion includes one or more of an entire disk, a disk
sector, a disk partition, and a disk subdivision as recited in claim 30?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–7, 9, 12, 15–17, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Although Records
Manager stores emails with common attributes in defined folders on page 26
as Appellant indicates (App. Br. 18), the Examiner cites EMAILxtender—
not Records Manager—for teaching storing objects in a disk or disk partition
according to the recited attribute-value-based storage criteria. Ans. 29
Appeal 2012-008779
Application 11/364,959

5
(citing EMAILxtender, at 18–20). Appellant’s arguments regarding Records
Manager’s individual shortcomings in this regard (App. Br. 18) are
unpersuasive where, as here, the rejection is based on the references’
collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
As shown in Figures 6 and 7, EMAILxtender’s Message Center
hierarchy includes, among other things, an upper-level “Server” object that
contains one lower-level “Vault” object, the latter containing all email data
to be processed. EMAILxtender, at 17–19. Notably, collection, exclusion,
and action rules can be applied at the vault level to collect, exclude or
forward mail matching specified attributes. Id. at 18. Although
EMAILxtender does not characterize the server or vault level as a disk or
disk partition, EMAILxtender at least suggests as much, particularly because
some sort of storage medium would be associated with these levels.
Therefore, providing an associated disk or disk partition in connection with
these storage-medium-based levels would have been at least an obvious
variation. That EMAILxtender’s vault level is further divided into
subordinate cabinet and folder levels only further bolsters the Examiner’s
position, at least to the extent that associating a disk or disk partition with at
least the higher vault level would have been obvious. Appellant’s arguments
regarding the difference between a file and a disk or disk partition (Reply
Br. 7) are unpersuasive, for they are not germane to the Examiner’s reliance
on EMAILxtender’s higher vault and server levels.
Appellant’s distinguishing a disk portion from a disk partition (Reply
Br. 7) is likewise unavailing. Notably, Appellant acknowledges that
EMAILxtender’s vault object may be considered a disk portion. Id.
Appeal 2012-008779
Application 11/364,959

6
Although Appellant contends that such a portion is not a partition (id.), the
plain meaning of “partition” suggests otherwise, for a “partition” is “[a]
logically distinct portion of a memory or a storage device that functions as
though it were a physically separate unit.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary
392 (5th ed. 2002) (emphasis added). That there is only one such vault-
based “portion” containing all email data within a particular server level as
noted on EMAILxtender’s page 18 only further bolsters the obviousness of
providing at least a vault-level disk partition in connection with the recited
attribute-value-based storage. The Examiner’s reliance on EMAILxtender’s
DiskXtender 2000 storage functionality on page 20 likewise supports the
Examiner’s position in this regard. See Ans. 29.
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on Records Manager
for at least suggesting the recited low-level erasure limitation. Ans. 6, 30.
Appellant’s Specification does not define the term “low-level erasure,” but
does indicate that objects “can be erased efficiently, e.g., by using lower
level (e.g., bulk) commands to erase the entire contents of a subfolder [or
disk].” Spec. ¶ 34 (emphasis added). Based on this non-limiting example of
lower-level erasure commands, namely bulk commands, we see no error in
the Examiner’s position that Records Manager’s bulk disposal actions on
page 25 at least suggests the recited low-level erasure. Although Records
Manager does not specify that the bulk disposal actions are without regard to
associated logical contents, skilled artisans would nonetheless understand
that such bulk disposals can reasonably include erasing all disk content
regardless of logical content. Accord Ans. 6–7 (noting that it is well known
that bulk operations can affect all stored data regardless of content). To the
extent that Appellant contends that Records Manager’s bulk disposal actions
Appeal 2012-008779
Application 11/364,959

7
are not the type of low-level erasures that are “closest to the hardware” such
as reformatting disks (see Reply Br. 4–5), Appellant provides no persuasive
evidence to substantiate that theory.
Moreover, even assuming, without deciding, that folder-based content
in Records Manager may be spread over multiple physical locations, and that
a single physical location can store contents from different folders as
Appellant contends (App. Br. 19), it need not be so stored as the above-
emphasized permissive language suggests. But even if such distributed
storage were required in Records Manager, nothing on this record precludes
a low-level erasure involving a single physical location.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–7, 9, 12, 15–17, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35
not argued separately with particularity.

Claim 24
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 reciting that the
physical storage location comprises a contiguous set of storage devices.
Notably, it is undisputed that EMAILxtender discloses such a storage
location. See App. Br. 20 (acknowledging this fact). Appellant, however,
contends that EMAILxtender’s contiguous storage devices do not store
objects according to the recited attribute-value-based storage criteria in light
of EMAILxtender’s time-period-based storage. Id.
Despite these contentions, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s position. As noted above in connection with claim 1, we find no
error in the Examiner’s position regarding the cited prior art at least
suggesting storing objects in a physical storage location according to the
Appeal 2012-008779
Application 11/364,959

8
attribute-based criteria in that claim. We likewise find no error in the
Examiner’s position in that regard where the physical storage device is a
contiguous set of storage devices (Ans. 30–31) —an acknowledged storage
location in EMAILxtender. In short, such an enhancement predictably uses
prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 24.

Claim 25
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 reciting a set of
storage devices to which at least some common processing applies to a
member of the set. We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
EMAILxtender’s applying the same format to disks on page 26 for at least
suggesting this limitation. Ans. 21. Although Appellant acknowledges this
common format, Appellant nonetheless contends that EMAILxtender’s disks
do not store objects according to the recited attribute-value-based storage
criteria in light of EMAILxtender’s time-period-based storage. App. Br. 20
–21.
Despite these contentions, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s position. As noted above in connection with claim 1, we find no
error in the Examiner’s position regarding the cited prior art at least
suggesting storing objects in a physical storage location according to the
attribute-based criteria in that claim. We likewise find no error in the
Examiner’s position in that regard where the physical storage device is a set
of storage devices to which at least some common processing applies to a
Appeal 2012-008779
Application 11/364,959

9
member of that set, particularly in view of EMAILxtender’s applying the
same format to disks on page 26 as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 21. In
short, such an enhancement predictably uses prior art elements according to
their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
417.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 25.

Claims 30, 33, and 36
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 reciting that a
disk portion includes one or more of an entire disk, a disk sector, a disk
partition, and a disk subdivision. We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance
on EMAILxtender’s separate partition and EX Storage Drive for teaching
this limitation. Ans. 23. Although Appellant acknowledges
EMAILxtender’s separate partition, Appellant nonetheless contends that
EMAILxtender’s partition does not store objects according to the recited
attribute-value-based storage criteria because EMAILxtender’s partition
stores container files for storing email messages regardless of email
attributes. App. Br. 22.
Despite these contentions, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s position. As noted above in connection with claim 1, we find no
error in the Examiner’s position regarding the cited prior art at least
suggesting storing objects in a physical storage location according to the
attribute-based criteria in that claim. We likewise find no error in the
Examiner’s position in that regard where a disk portion includes, among
other things, a disk partition and an entire disk In short, such an
Appeal 2012-008779
Application 11/364,959

10
enhancement predictably uses prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 30, or in rejecting claims 33 and 36, which are not argued separately
with particularity.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Because Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 8 (Ans. 27–28), we summarily sustain this rejection. See
MPEP § 1205.02 (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not
addressed in the appellant’s brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily
sustained by the Board.”).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–9, 12, 15–17, 20, 21,
24–27, and 29–36 under § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9, 12, 15–17, 20, 21, 24–
27, and 29–36 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