Ex Parte Mcclanahan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 201311952548 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/952,548 12/07/2007 Edward D. MCCLANAHAN 2120-03100 1457 85421 7590 12/19/2013 Conley Rose, P.C. P.O. Box 3267 Houston, TX 77253-3267 EXAMINER KIM, CHONG R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER COM MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte EDWARD D. MCCLANAHAN, GREGORY ELKINBARD, DIVYA JAIN, BORISLAV MARINOV, and DILIP NAIK ____________________ Appeal 2011-007667 Application 11/952,548 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007667 Application 11/952,548 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 13 has been cancelled. We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellants, the claims are directed to detecting a need to access metadata during directory operations (Spec. 1, [0002]). Exemplary Claims Claims 10 and 19 reproduced below, are representative of the claimed subject matter: 10. A computer-readable medium storing a software program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: receive a request to list information about data in a first directory; search for a unique symbol in the first directory based on the request, the unique symbol associated with a stub file in the first directory; and provide the information about data in the first directory except for non-location information about the stub file if the unique symbol is found; and provide the information about data in the second directory if the unique symbol is found, the data in the Appeal 2011-007667 Application 11/952,548 3 second directory corresponding to target information in the stub file. 19. A method comprising: receiving a request to delete data from a first file server; probing the first file server based on the request; reading a stub file on the first file server based on a result of the probing, the stub file comprising target information; forwarding the request to a second file server based on the target information; and deleting the stub file. REFERENCES Stacey Kathuria US 2006/0212481 A1 US 2006/0235907 A1 Sept. 21, 2006 Oct. 19, 2006 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: (1) Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 15, and 17-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being anticipated by Stacey (Ans. 3-9). (2) Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Stacey and Kathuria (Ans. 9-10). 1 1 The Examiner has objected to claim 3; however, since this is a petitionable matter, this issue is not before us. Appeal 2011-007667 Application 11/952,548 4 We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 23-25 Appellants do not argue the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 23-25 as being anticipated by Stacey and the rejection of claim 7 as being obvious over Stacy and Kathuria. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Stacey and claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Stacey and Kathuria. ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 4, 9, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 Appellants argue their invention as recited in claim 10 is not anticipated by Stacey (App. Br. 11-12). The issue presented by the arguments is: Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Stacey discloses “provide the information about data in the first directory except for non-location information about the stub file if the unique symbol is found,” as recited in claim 10? Appeal 2011-007667 Application 11/952,548 5 ANALYSIS Appellants argue Stacey’s description of a pass-through method and a full migration method (App. Br. 11-12). According to Appellants, neither of Stacey’s disclosed methods describes providing information from both the first and second directory (App. Br. 12). Appellants argue Stacey’s URL corresponds with target information and not information about the first directory; the URL is not described as being provided; and the read-only snapshot of Stacey corresponds to the second directory (id.). Therefore, Appellants assert no data is provided from the first directory (id.). Instead, Appellants contend Stacey only provides information about the first directory by indicating the stub file is not in the first directory (Reply Br. 1). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning and adopt them as our own. We emphasize the “unique symbol,” the offline attribute, is associated with the stub file in the first directory (Ans. 5 and 11; Stacey, p. 3, [0031]). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Stacey discloses the invention as recited in claim 10. Claims 4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 were not separately argued, but instead Appellants rely on the arguments set forth for claim 10 (App. Br. 11-12). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 9, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Stacey. Appeal 2011-007667 Application 11/952,548 6 ISSUE 3 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 19-22 Appellants argue their invention as recited in claim 19 is not anticipated by Stacey (App. Br. 11-12). The issue presented by the arguments is: Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding Stacey discloses “deleting the stub file” as recited in claim 19? ANALYSIS Appellants argue in Stacey stub files are replaced with files to which the stub files point and are not deleted (App. Br. 13). According to Appellants, the embodiment disclosed in Stacy describes a response to migration of the file pointed to by the stub file (id.). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning (Ans. 8 and 12-13) and adopt them as our own. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Stacey discloses the invention as recited in claim 19. Claims 20-22 were not separately argued, but instead Appellants rely on the arguments set forth for claim 19 (App. Br. 12-13). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 19- 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Stacey. ISSUE 4 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 16 Appellants assert their invention as recited in claim 16 is not obvious over Stacey and Kathuria because Kathuria does not cure the deficiencies of Appeal 2011-007667 Application 11/952,548 7 Stacy (App. Br. 13). As set forth above, we find Stacey describes the invention as recited in claim 10. Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Stacey and Kathuria. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 15, and 17-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Stacey is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stacey and Kathuria 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 kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation