Ex Parte Mahalingam et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 29, 2008

10284109 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MALLIK MAHALINGAM, ZHICHEN XU,
and CHUNQIANG TANG
____________________

Appeal 2008-2167
Application 10/284,1091
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: December 29, 2008
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAY P. LUCAS, and THU A.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 to 11, and 14
to 19 under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Board of Patent Appeals and

1 Application filed October 31, 2002. The real party in interest is Hewlett-
Packard Development Co.

Appeal 2008-2167
Application 10/284,109

Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 3, 4,
12, 13, 20, and 21 are canceled.
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for storing and
retrieving a version of an object when the version number is not in the
directory, but the date of interest is known. In the words of the Appellants:
According to an embodiment of the invention, a method for
generating a snapshot of a file system operable to store a plurality of
objects comprises receiving a snapshot time identifying a point in time
in a history of the file system; and identifying at least one object
available at the snapshot time based on one or more of a creation
timestamp and an invisible _ after timestamp for the at least one
object.

(Spec., 3).

Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for generating a snapshot of a file system operable to
store a plurality of objects, the method comprising steps of:

receiving a snapshot time identifying a point in time in a history of the
file system;

identifying at least one object available from the file system at the
snapshot time based on one or more of a creation timestamp and an invisible
_ after timestamp for the at least one object, wherein the creation timestamp
is associated with a time the at least one object is created in the file system
and the invisible _ after timestamp is associated with a time the at least one
object is made unavailable to a user but is not deleted from the file system;

generating a creation timestamp for each of a plurality of objects in
the file system; and
2
Appeal 2008-2167
Application 10/284,109

generating an invisible _after timestamp for each of the plurality of
objects in the file system, wherein objects having an invisible _ after
timestamp are unavailable to the user after a time of the timestamp, but are
not deleted from the file system;

wherein the step of identifying at least one object further comprises

determining whether a creation timestamp for the at least one object is
before the snapshot time;

determining whether an invisible _ after timestamp for the at least one
object is after the snapshot time; and

identifying the at least one object as available in response to the
creation timestamp being before the snapshot time and the invisible _ after
timestamp for the at least one object being after the snapshot time, wherein
the at least one object is a new version created from one of the plurality of
objects in the file system that is an old version of the at least one object, and
the creation timestamp for the now version is subsequent in time to the
invisible_ after timestamp of the old version.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Beardsley US 6,304,980 B1 Oct. 16, 2001
Varman et al., Optimal Storage and Access to Multiversion Data, Proc.
ICC’94, International Conference on Computing and Information, 1605-
1620, (1994).

REJECTIONS
R1: Claims 1, 2, 5 to 11, and 14 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for being obvious over Varman.
3
Appeal 2008-2167
Application 10/284,109

R2: Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being
obvious over Varman in view of Beardsley.

Groups of Claims:
The arguments will be considered in the order of the rejections.
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not rendered
obvious by Varman alone, or in combination with Beardsley, for failure of
the references to teach the limitations in the claims. The Examiner contends
that each of the claims is properly rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this opinion. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.

We affirm the rejections.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue for R1 turns on
whether the Varman reference teaches rendering an object (e.g. document)
in a file system as unavailable to the user but not deleted, in the manner
claimed. The issue for R2 turns on whether the Varman reference discloses
a semantic catalog as claimed.
4
Appeal 2008-2167
Application 10/284,109

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Appellants have invented a file system for objects in a computer in which
various types of records or documents, video clips, pieces of art or other
items may be stored. (Spec., 2, bottom). Though the documents may be
developed through various versions, most of which are kept (Id.), the
directories of the file system may not be adapted to retrieve the proper
document based on its version number. (Spec., 7, l. 4+). The retrieval of
the proper version of a document in that case may be based on semantic
information about the document. (Spec., 2, l. 22). Semantic information
“may be related to predetermined features that can be extracted from an
object.” (Spec., 5, ll. 22-23). Examples of semantic information given in
the Specification include the shiny smile of a person (p. 1, l. 23) or word
or term frequency information for a text file (p. 6., l. 3) or time stamps
associated with the object. (P. 7, l. 5). A timestamp applied at the time
of a version’s creation (creation timestamp) and when it is retired from
active use and thus made unavailable or invisible (invisible_after
timestamp) define the limits of when an object is in active use. (P. 11, l.
6). After the latter timestamp, the object is hidden from the user’s view
(Id.) albeit not actually deleted from the database, so it can be recovered.
(P. 11, l. 25).
5
Appeal 2008-2167
Application 10/284,109

2. The Varman reference is a 1994 paper published in the Proceedings of
the International Conference on Computing and Information. It describes
a storage structure designed to facilitate taking “snapshots” of a database
to support query operations. (P. 1605, bottom). “A temporal database
provides automatic storage and management of old (versioned) data.” (P.
1606, l. 6). Each record is given start and end timestamps, and “remains
valid until the time at which it is either updated or deleted. If the record
is updated at a time t1 it creates a new version that is valid from t1 to
$[present time], and the end timestamp of the previous version becomes
t1.” (P. 1608, l. 3). Thus, we infer that the previous version is kept.
“Snapshots” retrieve all records that are valid at a time t1 and not those
that are “not valid.” (P. 1608, last line). Each record node “consists of
five fields: (key, start, end, cptr, info).” (P. 1611, l. 16). [cptr is a pointer
to an access list.]. The info field is the information carried by the record.
(Id.) Start and End are the fields containing the timestamps indicating
the time of creation and “the time at which the record was either deleted
or updated.” (Ibid, l. 19).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
6
Appeal 2008-2167
Application 10/284,109

obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).
“It is common sense that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be
able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1732 (2007).
“A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established
functions.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1731 (2007).

ANALYSIS
From our review of the administrative record, we find that the
Examiner has presented a prima facie case for the rejections of Appellants’
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The prima facie case is presented on pages 3
to 11 of the Examiner’s Answer. In opposition, Appellants present a number
of arguments.

Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 5 to 11, and 14 to 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 [R1]
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5
to 11, and 14 to 17 for being obvious over Varman. Exemplary claim 1
recites “wherein objects having an invisible_after timestamp are unavailable
7
Appeal 2008-2167
Application 10/284,109

to the user after a time of the timestamp, but are not deleted from the file
system….” Varman shows an update operation for versions of a record.
(See FF#2 above). Appellants argue
[h]owever, in such an update operation, Varman et al. makes no
mention of making files (i.e., alleged objects that are being claimed)
that are deemed old versions of the updated/new versions to be
unavailable to the user after a time of the invisible_after timestamp.
In fact, all files remain available to the users, regardless whether they
have an end timestamp (alleged “invisible_after timestamp”), until
such files are deleted.

(App. Br. 8, middle).

Varman teaches that the old versions of updated files are not valid
after the end timestamp. (P. 1608, l. 3). Appellants’ argument that
Varman’s non-valid versions are still available, in a manner different from
that disclosed in their own Specification, is not persuasive. Both the
reference Varman and the Appellants do not delete an updated record. One
calls the old version “not valid,” and the other calls it “invisible” or
“unavailable,” but we find that it amounts to the same thing. Since a major
purpose of the Varman system is to allow operations to be performed on the
“latest version of records i.e. on the current database” (p. 1607, l. 14) we
find Appellants’ reading of the reference strained. Varman discusses the
present version as being the valid version, and in our view, we find that this
lays a foundation to support the Examiner’s conclusion of non-obviousness.
See FF#2 above and Examiner’s arguments in the Answer, page 13, bottom
for more elaboration.
8
Appeal 2008-2167
Application 10/284,109

We thus decline to find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, 5 to 11, and 14 to 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 18 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 [R2]
Claims 18 and 19 include the limitation that “the file system further
comprising a semantic catalogue storing semantic information for the
plurality of objects.” (Claim 18, last limitation). Appellants argue that
Varman “does not disclose anywhere in its disclosure of ‘a semantic
catalogue.’” (App. Br., 9, bottom). As mentioned in Finding of Facts #1
above: “[S]emantic information may be related to predetermined features
that can be extracted from an object.” (Spec., 5, l. 22). Examples of
semantic information given in the Specification include the shiny smile of a
person (p. 1, l. 23) or word or term frequency information for a text file (p.
6., l. 3) or time stamps associated with the object. (P. 7, l. 5).
Examiner has pointed out that the records in Varman include different
fields, some of which contain the substantive information of the record, the
“info” field, and some of which fields contain information about that
information, the “start, end and cptr (retrieval pointer)” fields. (Answer, 15,
bottom). We do not find error in the Examiner’s labeling the latter types of
information “semantic information” as we find it consistent with the
examples given by Appellants in the Specification. Thus, we find the
9
Appeal 2008-2167
Application 10/284,109

claimed limitation disclosed in the prior art, and the rejection supported by
that disclosure.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err erred in rejecting the claims of R1 and R2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 to 11, and 14 to 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for being obvious over Varman is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being
obvious over Varman in view of Beardsley 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

rwk

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins CO 80527-2400

10