Ex Parte Maionchi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 6, 2010

10334101 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 6, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/334,101 12/30/2002 Joseph M. Maionchi VRT0041US 5766
60429 7590 07/07/2010
CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP
11401 CENTURY OAKS TERRACE
BLDG. H, SUITE 250
AUSTIN, TX 78758
EXAMINER
HICKS, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOSEPH M. MAIONCHI, JOHN A. COLGROVE,
and CRAIG K. HARMER
____________

Appeal 2009-004556
Application 10/334,101
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-004556
Application 10/334,101

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a method, system, and medium for tracking
changes in a file system using a log. See generally Spec. 4-5. Claim 1 is
reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method comprising:

updating file change log data to indicate that a change to a file has
occurred, wherein

the file is one of a plurality of files in a file system,

the file change log data comprise a file identifier of the file,

the file identifier is usable to obtain a full path name for the
file from a reverse name lookup function,

the file change log data is maintained by a first node,
wherein the first node implements a first file system,

the file change log data are accessible using a file system-
independent operating system function, and

the file system-independent operating system function does
not vary in accordance with a type of the file system; and

allowing a second node to access the file change log data, wherein
the second node implements a file system other than the first file
system (emphasis added).

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Appeal 2009-004556
Application 10/334,101

3
Banelisha US 2003/0144990 A1 July 31, 2003
(filed Jan. 12, 2003,
provisional application
No. 60/349,765 filed
Jan. 15, 2002)

Koseki US 6,732,124 B1 May 4, 2004
(filed Feb. 9, 2000)

White US 6,892,377 B1 May 10, 2005
(filed Dec. 21, 2001)

Use Access Control to Restrict Who Can Use Files 1-32 (Aug. 24, 2001),
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/learnmore/accesscontr
ol.mspx (last visited July 2, 2010) (“Microsoft”).

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 14-16, 18-20, and 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koseki, White, and
Benelisha. Ans. 3-9.3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 4-13, 17, 21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koseki, White, Benelisha, and
Microsoft. Ans. 9-15.

CLAIM GROUPING
Appellants argue the following claim groupings separately: (1) claims
1-3, 14-16, 18-20, and 22-24 and (2) claims 4-13, 17, 21, and 25. See Br. 6-

2 Three printed pages of this reference were provided, and we refer to the
page numbers as they appear in the record.
3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed February
11, 2008 and (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 2, 2008.
Appeal 2009-004556
Application 10/334,101

4
9. Accordingly, we select claims 1 and 4 as representative of each group.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KOSEKI, WHITE, AND BENELISHA
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Koseki
teaches many of the limitations, but not: (1) a file system-independent
operating system function that does not vary with file system type, or (2)
allowing a second node, which has a file system other than the first file
system, to access the file change log data. Ans. 3-5. The Examiner relies on
White to cure these deficiencies. Ans. 5-7. In particular, the Examiner cites
White’s teaching regarding a file-system-independent process in
combination with Koseki to teach allowing a second node having a file
system other than the first node’s file system to access the file change log
data.
Appellants argue that the cited art fails to teach file change log data
maintained by a first node that implements a first file system. Br. 6.
Appellants also assert that White discloses only a single file system, and
does not allow a second node to access a file change log data maintained by
the first node. Appellants further contend that the remaining references do
not cure these purported deficiencies. Id. at 8-9.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Koseki, White, and Benelisha collectively would have taught or
suggested:
Appeal 2009-004556
Application 10/334,101

5
(1) file change log data maintained by a first node that implements a
first file system, and
(2) allowing a second node to access the file change log data, where
the second node implements a file system other than the first file system?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Koseki discloses a computer file system having an operating
system (OS) (e.g., UNIX OS). The system includes a certain function to
restore the file system with less system down time using transaction logs and
any modifications or changes to the data in the computer file system are
recorded in a log file. Koseki, col. 1, ll. 27-39.
2. White teaches a process for interfacing with OS file space within
a client-server network. White, col. 1, ll. 13-16.
3. White’s process is performed within a computer network 20
having at least one client computer 22 and at least one server computer 24.
White also discusses remote server computers. White, col. 6, ll. 12-17, 27-
30.
4. White teaches a seamless and transparent method that allows for
platform-independent file system interactions and provides a singular
program interface for developers to access and manipulate file specifications
and to perform a desire file operation regardless of the operating system’s
abilities. Such a singular interface does away with multiple separate
function calls to ensure compatibility with the underlying computer system’s
OS and capabilities. White, Abstract, col. 1, ll. 16-22, col. 2, ll. 46-59, col.
3, ll. 14-16, col. 4, ll. 14-24.
Appeal 2009-004556
Application 10/334,101

6
5. White also provides possible examples of different OS including
UNIX, Windows, Apple Macintosh, and Linux, that are called. White, col.
4, ll. 41-43, col. 5, ll. 61-63.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, file change log data to be “maintained by a first node” that implements
a first file system. Koseki discloses a computer file system having an OS,
such as UNIX, that includes a certain function to restore the file system
using transaction logs. FF 1. Koseki also discloses that any modifications
or changes to the data in the computer file system are recorded in a log file.
Id. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ assertions (Br. 6), Koseki discloses a first
node (e.g., the computer system with an OS) that maintains a file change log
data (i.e., a log file of changes in data) as recited in claim 1. However, as
the Examiner admits (Ans. 4-5), Koseki does not teach allowing a second
node, which has a file system other than the first file system, to access the
file change log data as recited in claim 1. We therefore turn to White’s
teachings.
White teaches a process for interfacing within a client-server network.
FF 2. In particular, White teaches that the computer network 20 has at least
one client computer 22 and at least one server computer 24. FF 3. White
also discusses remote server computers on at least one occasion. Id. Thus,
at a minimum, White suggests this process can be used with a computer
network that includes multiple nodes (e.g., a computer and a server or
multiple computers/servers). We therefore disagree with Appellants (Br. 6)
Appeal 2009-004556
Application 10/334,101

7
that White discusses only a first node implementing a first file system and
not a second node implementing a file system.
White also teaches a seamless and transparent method that allows for
platform-independent file system interactions and provides a single interface
for accessing file specifications and for performing desired file operations
regardless of the operating system’s abilities. FF 4. White’s interface
therefore does away with multiple separate function calls depending on the
underlying computer system’s OS and capabilities. Id. White also provides
possible examples of different OS within the network, including UNIX,
Windows, Apple MacIntosh, and Linux. FF 5. We therefore find that White
at least suggests a computer network having a first and second node (e.g., a
computer 22 and a server 24), where each node has a different operating or
file system (e.g., one having UNIX and one having Windows).
To be sure, White does not discuss maintaining file change log data as
recited in claim 1 and as Appellants argue (Br. 6-8). But attacking White
individually does not show nonobviousness where rejection is based on
Koseki and White collectively. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, Koseki and White collectively teach
and suggest a second node (e.g., server 24) having a file system (e.g., UNIX)
different from the first node’s file system (e.g., Windows). See FFs. 2, 3 &
5. Koseki and White also collectively teach a network which permits a
developer to access a file system’s specifications and perform desired file
operations (FF 4), including accessing a file change log data maintained by a
first node (FF 1), as discussed in White, through a server to restore the first
file system (FFs. 1 & 4). Combining White’s teachings with Koseki
therefore yields no more than the predictable result of allowing a second
Appeal 2009-004556
Application 10/334,101

8
node having a file system other than the first file system (e.g., a server
having UNIX OS) to interface with a first node (e.g., a computer having
Windows OS) and thereby provide access to the node’s file change log data
so as to allow a developer to perform desired operations. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Independent claims 14, 18, and 22 are similar in scope to claim 1 and
we are likewise unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Dependent claims
2, 3, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, and 24 depend directly or indirectly from
independent claims 1, 14, 18, and 22.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown error in the
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 based on Koseki, White, and
Benelisha. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3,
14-16, 18-20, and 22-24 which fall with claim 1.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KOSEKI, WHITE, BENELISHA,
AND MICROSOFT

Representative claim 4 depends indirectly from claim 1. The
Examiner finds that Koseki, White, and Benelisha do not teach the claim’s
step of preventing a selected operation to the file change log by an
application when the selected operation modifies the file containing the file
change log (Ans. 9-10) and relies on Microsoft to teach this missing
limitation (id. at 10). Appellants rely on the previous discussion of claims 1,
14, 18, and 22. See Br. 9. As discussed above, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments. We will therefore sustain the § 103 rejection of
representative claim 4 and claims 5-13, 17, 21, and 25 which fall with claim
1.
Appeal 2009-004556
Application 10/334,101

9

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-25 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 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

llw

CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP
11401 CENTURY OAKS TERRACE
BLDG. H, SUITE 250
AUSTIN TX 78758