Ex Parte Lin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201813456084 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/456,084 04/25/2012 39254 7590 09/05/2018 Barta, Jones & Foley, P.C. (Patent Group - Microsoft Corporation) 2805 Dallas Parkway Suite 222 Plano, TX 75093 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Zheng Lin 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. 334820-US-NP 8080 EXAMINER KIM,PAUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 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): usdocket@microsoft.com uspto@dockettrak.com docket@bjfip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZHENG LIN, JONATHAN M. CLASS, BENJAMIN W. SCHWARZ, JEREMY S. RUSSELL, and BEAU A. BELGRAVE Appeal2018-001737 Application 13/456,084 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-001737 Application 13/456,084 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-19 and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. The claims are directed to a dynamic replication of networked files. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: executing instructions on a client computing device for a process that utilizes one or more file system objects; intercepting, by the client computing device, a file system request that is initiated by the process for a requested file system object; determining, by the client computing device, from file system metadata stored at the client computing device whether the requested file system object exists; initiating, by the client computing device, replication of the requested file system object from a networked peer device to the client computing device responsive to determining that the requested file system object is available on the networked peer device; and registering, by the client computing device, metadata of the replicated file system object that is stored at the client computing device, the metadata of the replicated file system object including a data path for the 1 Appellants indicated that Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC is the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3). 2 Appeal2018-001737 Application 13/456,084 replicated file system object that is stored at the client computing device and identification of the replicated file system object at the client computing device as current, to a distributed file system controller that publishes the metadata of the replicated file system object to the networked peer device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Murphy et al. US 7,243,103 B2 July 10, 2007 ("Murphy") Palliyil et al. US 7,519,726 B2 Apr. 14, 2009 ("Palliyil") Farber US 7,802,310 B2 Sept. 21, 2010 ("Farber") Caso et al. US 2010/0287219 Al Nov. 11, 2010 ("Caso") REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-2, 4--6, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Caso in view of Farber. (Final Act. 3). 3 Appeal2018-001737 Application 13/456,084 Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Caso in view of Palliyil. 2 3 (Final Act. 6). Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Caso in view Faber in view of Murphy. (Final Act. 6-7). Claims 15 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Caso in view of Murphy. 4 (Final Act. 7-8). ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Claims 1-7 Appellants initially argue independent claim 1 and dependent 2 It is noted the Examiner, however, did not list Farber among the references upon which the rejection of claim 3 is based ( e.g., Caso in view of Palliyil, Final Act. 6). Claim 3 depends from claim 1, thus Caso in view of Farber is the basis for the limitations of claim 1 incorporated in claim 3. Although Appellant does not allege error in this regard, the Examiner's failure to list Farber, as a reference for the rejection of claim 3, is improper. The Examiner however must positively recite the reference in the statement of the rejection if relied upon to support the rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341 n.3 (CCPA 1970). 3 In a similar manner to that noted above, the Examiner did not list Farber among the references upon which the rejection of claim 10 is based. Claim 10 depends from claim 8, thus Caso in view of Farber is the basis for the limitations of claim 8 incorporated in claim 10. (Final Act. 6). 4 It is further noted the Examiner rejected claims 16, 18 and 19 over the combination of Caso in view of Farber. (Final Act. 3--4). However, the Examiner rejected claim 15 over Caso in view of Murphy and did not list Farber among the references upon which the rejection of claim 15 is based, where claim 16, 18 and 19 depend from claim 15. (Final Act. 7). Further, claim 17 was rejected over the combination of Caso in view of Pallilyil. (Final Act. 6). 4 Appeal2018-001737 Application 13/456,084 claims 2-7 as a group, but do not present further arguments for dependent claims 2-7. (App. Br. 13-16). We select claim 1 as representative of claims 2-7 (see 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016)) and do not address separately the rejection of claims 2-7. With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Caso discloses "registering, by the client computing device, metadata of the replicated file system object that is stored at the client computing device" because the Examiner finds the details regarding the location, status, and existence of the file are provided to the web service by the local software client, which allows all other devices being unified to be continuously made aware of the changes in the location or existence of the file. (Final Act. 4, emphasis altered). Moreover, the Examiner finds Caso discloses a file is stored both on a remote and local device and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Caso teaches a system wherein replication of a system object is made. (Ans. 3). Further, the Examiner finds that details related to location, state and existence of a file are provided to a web service (i.e., registered) so that other devices may be updated on any changes to a file and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the file would be registered, as claimed. (Ans. 3). Appellants contend Caso describes "propagating 'to all other devices' updated metadata after restoring the file to its virtual state by removing the file from local memory." (App. Br. 13) (emphasis added). Thus, Appellants conclude Caso cannot possibly teach or suggest "'registering, by the client computing device, metadata of the replicated file system object that is stored at the client computing device,' as recited in claim 1 because the file is not stored at the client device after removal." (App. Br. 13) ( emphasis omitted). 5 Appeal2018-001737 Application 13/456,084 Moreover, Appellants contend there is no suggestion as to how a file is stored at both the remote and local devices, and no suggestion in Caso wherein a replication of a system object is made, and that rejections based on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rationale underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. (Reply Br. 6-7). We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Caso does not teach or suggest the limitation in claim 1 of "registering, by the client computing device, metadata of the replicated file system object that is stored at the client computing device." Specifically, Caso discloses "[i]fthe file is a local file, physically located on the local device, the operating is performed on the local file and the software client notifies the web service to update the meta- index to reflect changes to the attributes of the file." (Caso ,r 31 ). Conversely, in the same paragraph, Caso discloses accessing a virtual file where the file is transferred to the local device. The user performs an operation on the transferred file and the changes are propagated back to the remote device, and then the file is removed from the local device. (Id.). Thus, Caso discloses, in the cited portion, a process to allow updating of a file on either the local device or remote device rather than registering metadata of a replicated file system object. Thus, we agree with Appellants, Caso does not teach or suggest, as the claim requires, "registering, by the client computing device, metadata of the replicated system object stored at the client device." It is noted, Caso is specific as disclosing "All file metadata is integrated into the local device so that the view of the data is common across all of the devices, as if the files were actually stored locally across all 6 Appeal2018-001737 Application 13/456,084 devices, even though they are not." (Caso ,r 28) ( emphasis added). Further Caso discloses, "[t]he system method of data unification does not rely on file replication or cloning." (Id. ,r 27) ( emphasis added). Thus, Caso does not teach or suggest a replicated file, as the claim requires, rather Caso discloses a file is stored at a single location with shared metadata across multiple locations. For these additional reasons, we agree with Appellants that Caso does not teach or suggest registering of metadata of a replicated system object. (App. Br. 13). Moreover, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not set forth a persuasive motivation to combine the references and that the Examiner concludes that the combination would provide a "predictable result of a system wherein a file which is transferred from a remote device to a local device, as disclosed by Caso, may be registered as a new directory entry record with the path to said files," without providing evidence to support the conclusion that the combination would been predictable. (App. Br 14--15; see also Final Act. 4; and MPEP 2143 (A)). 5 Specifically, we agree with Appellants that Farber makes no mention of registering metadata of a replicated file system objects. (App. Br. 14). Thus, we do not sustain the decision to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and for the same reasons herein, we do not sustain the decision to reject claims 2-7. Claims 8-14 Appellants initially argue independent claim 8 and dependent claims 9-14 as a group, but do not present further arguments for dependent 5 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Jan. 2018 (R-08.2017). 7 Appeal2018-001737 Application 13/456,084 claims 9-14. (App. Br. 16-20). We select claim 8 as illustrative of claims 9-14 and do not address separately the rejections of claims 9-14. Appellants contend that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established in rejecting claims 8-14, for at least the same reasons as discussed with respect to independent claims 1-7. (App. Br. 16-20). Because we find independent claim 8 contains similar limitations, and we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, we are also persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-14 for the same reasons as those for claim 1. Claims 15-19 and 21 The Appellants initially argue independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16-19 and 21, as a group, but do not present further arguments for dependent claims 16-19 and 21. (App. Br. 20-22). We select independent claim 15 as illustrative of claims 16-19 and 21 and do not address separately the rejections of claims 16-19 and 21. With respect to independent claim 15, the Examiner finds that Caso fails to disclose "determining duplicative file system objects and whether the requested file system object is current based on a signature of the requested file system object that is included in the file system metadata" and relies on Murphy for this limitation. (Final Act. 8). The Examiner finds Murphy discloses a particular number of versions to be maintained for some period of time where the file ID is made up of replication ID, Node ID and unique message number. (Final Act. 8). 8 Appeal2018-001737 Application 13/456,084 Appellants contend that "Caso and Murphy fail to disclose, teach, or in any way suggest a file manager configured to 'determine duplicative file system objects with a same file name and with different signatures on the client computing device and on the networked peer device, and whether the requested file system object is current based on the signature of the requested file system object'" because, Appellants contend, Murphy does not teach determining file system objects with the same file name but different signatures. (App. Br. 20-21 ). We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Murphy describes assigning file names with a version number or other indications that distinguishes the file from the current file, but that Murphy fails to address or determine objects with the same file name but having different signatures. (App. Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 8). Moreover, in the cited portion, Murphy does not teach or suggest determining if the storage locker file tables contain duplicate files with the same name but having different signatures. (See e.g., Murphy col. 14, 11. 1-19) Further, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's reasoning to combine Caso in view of Murphy cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements and there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning. (Reply Br. 9). In this case, the Examiner has not articulated persuasive reasoning how Caso and Murphy would be modified to provide a predictable result used to determine whether a data object is a new version of a file already stored within the file folder, as determined by the Examiner. (Final Act. 8). Thus, we do not sustain the decision to reject claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 16-19 and 21 depend from claim 15 and for the same reasons herein, we do not sustain the decision to reject dependent claims 16-19 and 21. 9 Appeal2018-001737 Application 13/456,084 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision in rejecting claims 1- 19 and 21 is reversed. REVERSED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation