Ex Parte Kiriansky

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12182989 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/182,989
36378 7590
VMWARE, INC,
DARRYL SMITH
FILING DATE
07/30/2008
10/03/2016
3401 Hillview Ave.
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vladimir L. KIRIANSKY
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.
A214 4806
EXAMINER
SAIN, GAUTAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
ipteam@vmware.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VLADIMIR L. KIRIANSKY
Appeal2015-008046
Application 12/182,989
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2-12, 22, 23, and 25. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 2-6, 8-11, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Schneider (US 2009/0049271 Al; Feb. 19, 2009),
Lam et al. (US 7,721,064 Bl; May 18, 2010), and Srivastava et al. (US
2007/0288533 Al; Dec. 13, 2007). Ans. 2-8.
Appeal2015-008046
Application 12/182,989
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Schneider, Lam, Srivastava, and Hamilton et al. (US 7,739,250 Bl; June 15,
2010). Ans. 9.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Schneider, Lam, Srivastava, and Watkins et al. (US 2008/005489 Al; Jan. 3,
2008). Ans. 10-11.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to memory management using page
transformation. Abstract. Claim 9 is illustrative and reproduced below:
9. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
embodying software instructions for managing memory space, the software
instructions causing a computer to perform a method, the method comprising
the steps of:
identifying a page, within a memory space of a random access
memory that is managed in units of pages, that is similar, but not identical,
to a reference page within said memory space, wherein the identified page
and the referenced page are each a single page in said memory space;
obtaining transformation information enabling re-creation of the
identified page from the reference page;
storing at least one of the transformation information or a pointer to
the transformation information; and,
deleting the identified page,
wherein the step of obtaining the transformation information
comprises determining one addend that is common to all memory locations
2
Appeal2015-008046
Application 12/182,989
of the identified page having a stored value different from corresponding
reference values stored on the reference page, the one addend equaling a
difference between each of the stored values and each of the corresponding
reference values.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 2---6, 8-11, 22, 23, AND 25 OVER
SCHNEIDER, LAM, AND SRIVASTAVA
The Examiner finds Schneider, Lam, and Srivastava teach all
limitations of claim 9. Ans. 4--5.
Appellant presents the following principal argument:
The portions of Srivastava cited by the Examiner (Srivastava i-fi-177,
80, 82) do not teach the recited (claim 9):
wherein the step of obtaining the transformation
information comprises determining one addend that is common
to all memOPJ locations of the identified page having a stored
value different from corresponding reference values stored on the
reference page, the one addend equaling a difference between
each of the stored values and each of the corresponding reference
values.
App. Br. 8-10.
Appellant argues:
Examples of a base file, a revised file, and a delta file are shown
in FIG. 3 of Srivastava. None of the cited portions, however,
teaches an "addend" or any other element that is equal to a
difference between each of the stored values in an identified page
and each of the corresponding reference values stored in a
reference page.
App. Br. 9.
3
Appeal2015-008046
Application 12/182,989
Appellant further argues: "finding a more efficient way [(the longest
common subsequence (LCS) algorithm)] to generate a delta file does not
change the type of information contained in the delta file such that it
transforms the delta file into an addend that is equal to the difference
between the stored values and corresponding reference values." App. Br. 9.
Appellant additionally argues:
Neither the insertion primitive nor the deletion primitive [in the
delta file] meets the limitations of an addend that equals a
difference between a stored value and a corresponding reference
value. Instead of finding the numerical difference between a
stored value and a corresponding reference value, Srivastava
simply removes a value using a deletion primitive or replaces a
value using an insertion primitive.
App. Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner finds:
[a ]ccording to [a] broad interpretation of [the] claimed 'addend,'
Srivastava discloses a delta file 3 6 to indicate how to modify the
base file to arrive at the revised version by updating the base file
so that it matches the revised version (0033). Srivastava suggests
the disclosed calculations as numeric values because it discloses
that signatures of the two files (base and revised) are "calculated"
and then compared (see Fig 3, 0033). The disclosed delta file
discloses the difference between blocks in two files by
comparing a calculated signature of the two files ([ ]0039).
Ans. 11-12. The Examiner finds: "delta file 36 reflects the difference
between the two files (0077), which is interpreted as [the] claimed 'addend'
according to [the] broadest reasonable interpretation." Ans. 12.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues: "in the context of the
specification [(i-fi-123-26)], a person of skill in the art would interpret the
term 'addend' as a number that is added to another number." Reply Br. 2.
Appellants further argue: "the coarse and fine signatures are only used to
4
Appeal2015-008046
Application 12/182,989
find the location at which a difference exists. Srivastava, [0059]. Neither the
coarse nor the fine signature is stored in the delta file; only the insert and
delete commands are stored in the delta file. Srivastava, [0060]." Reply Br.
4.
Appellant's arguments have shown the Examiner erred in finding
Srivastava teaches the disputed limitation.
Claim 9 requires the addend "is common to all memory locations of
the identified page having a stored value different from corresponding
reference values stored on the reference page, the one addend equaling a
difference between each of the stored values and each of the corresponding
reference values." Srivastava's delta file reflects a difference between a base
file and a revised file. See Srivastava i-fi-177, 80, 82. More specifically, the
Examiner has not shown Srivastava's delta file (insertion and/or deletion
primitives) is "common to all memory locations of the identified page
having a stored value different from corresponding reference values stored
on the reference page, the one addend equaling a difference between each of
the stored values and each of the corresponding reference values" as
required by claim 9 because the insertion/deletion primitives insert or delete
data at various offset locations- there are no stored values and
corresponding reference values. To the extent Srivastava compares
signatures (see Ans. 11-12), we agree with Appellant (see Reply Br. 4) that
the signatures are used to locate differences between files, and only insert
and/or delete primitives are actually included in the delta file. Srivastava i-fi-1
54---60.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9, or
of claims 2---6, 10, 11, 22, 23, and 25, which depend from claim 9.
5
Appeal2015-008046
Application 12/182,989
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 (Ans. 3--4,
15-16), which recites:
wherein the step of obtaining the transformation information
comprises calculating a set of vectors, each vector comprising an
addend location and an addend, the addend location identifying
a location in the identified page having a stored value different
from a reference value stored at a corresponding location on the
reference page, the addend equaling a difference between the
stored value and the reference value.
Srivastava's delta file, containing insertion and deletion primitives,
does not teach an addend equaling a difference between the stored value and
the reference value. Moreover, Srivastava's delta file (insertion and/or
deletion primitives) does not teach "an addend location and an addend, the
addend location identifying a location in the identified page having a stored
value different from a reference value stored at a corresponding location on
the reference page, the addend equaling a difference between the stored
value and the reference value" as required by claim 8 because the
insertion/deletion primitives insert or delete data at various offset locations -
- there are no stored values and corresponding reference values.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 7 OVER SCHNEIDER, LAM,
SRIVASTAVA, AND HAMILTON
The Examiner has not shown Hamilton overcomes the deficiencies of
Schneider, Lam, and Srivastava discussed above with respect to claim 9,
from which claim 7 depends. See Ans. 9, 12-13.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7.
6
Appeal2015-008046
Application 12/182,989
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 12 OVER SCHNEIDER, LAM,
SRIVASTAVA, AND WATKINS
The Examiner has not shown Watkins overcomes the deficiencies of
Schneider, Lam, and Srivastava discussed above with respect to claim 9,
from which claim 12 depends. See Ans. 10-11, 13-14.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-12, 22, 23, and 25 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7