Ex Parte Muthyala et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

14217941 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/217,941 03/18/2014 Kartheek Muthyala
117203 7590 07/27/2018
Gilliam IP PLLC (NetApp)
7200 N. Mopac
Suite 440
Austin, TX 78731
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.
124.POl-010082.01.US.PRI 3025
EXAMINER
MINA,FATIMAP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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):
uspto@gilliamip.com
legalip@netapp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARTHEEK MUTHYALA, RANJIT KUMAR, and
SISIR SHEKHAR
Appeal 2018-001511
Application 14/217 ,941
Technology Center 2100
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN D. HAMANN,
and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
3, 7-13, 39, and 43-60. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2018-001511
Application 14/217 ,941
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to backing up data to cloud data storage while
maintaining storage efficiency. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for replicating file system data from an inode
based file system to object-based storage, comprising:
receiving, at a primary storage system that implements the
inode based file system, a request to back up data from the primary
storage system to a destination storage system that implements object-
based storage;
the primary storage system generating, using a replication
protocol, a replication stream comprising a data stream, a reference
stream, and a metadata stream, wherein the data stream comprises
data extents each associated with a volume block number, the
reference stream comprises reference maps that each associate an
inode with one or more mappings between a file block number and a
volume block number, and the metadata stream comprises inodes for
files to which the data extents belong; and
providing the replication stream to a parser for mapping the
data stream, the reference stream, and the metadata stream to multiple
object-based storage objects, said mapping including,
translating the data extents associated with volume block
numbers into object-based data objects;
translating the reference maps into respective object-based
reference map objects; and
translating the metadata for each of the inodes into an object-
based inode object.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Edwards
Evans
Jacobson
Prahlad
Sawdon
US 2005/0246382 Al Nov. 3, 2005
US 2006/0242164 Al Oct. 26, 2006
US 2009/0276593 Al Nov. 5, 2009
US 2010/0122053 Al May 13, 2010
US 2011/0153567 Al Jun. 23, 2011
2
Appeal 2018-001511
Application 14/217 ,941
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 39, 44--46, 51, 52, and 54--56 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prahlad in view of Edwards
and further in view of Jacobson.
Claims 3, 43, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Prahlad in view of Edwards and further in view of
Jacobson and further in view of Evans.
Claims 10-13, 47-50, and 57---60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prahlad in view of Edwards and further
in view of Jacobson and further in view of Sawdon.
OPINION
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if
Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas,
551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (theBoardmaytreatarguments
Appellants failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Appellants argue that Edwards either alone or in combination with
Prahlad does not teach or suggest the limitation of "reference maps that each
associate an inode with one or more mappings between a file block number
and a volume block number," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 10-11).
The Examiner finds that Edwards teaches "[t]he RAID system
provides the disk geometry information to the file system for use when
creating and maintaining the vbn-to-disk, dbn mappings used to perform
3
Appeal 2018-001511
Application 14/217 ,941
write allocation operations and to translate vbns to disk locations for read
operations" (Ans. 2 citing para. 11 ). The Examiner further finds Edwards
teaches "the logical vbn is mapped to a disk identifier and disk block number
(disk, dbn) and sent to an appropriate driver (e.g., SCSI) of the disk driver
system 250" (Ans. 2 citing para. 51 ). The Examiner also finds that Edwards
teaches "the write allocator acquires the vvbn directly from the indirect
block or inode file parent of the freed block" (Ans. 2 citing para. 22). The
Examiner explains that the above findings describe that the reference stream
maps the data from the source to the destination, which is from the vbn
(volume based node) to disk and the data is transferred from vbn-to-disk
using dbn mappings ( disk block number mappings) (Ans. 2-3). The
Examiner further explains that before transferring, the data is mapped from
the source to the destination volume and each file is associated with inode
and file block number. Id. Moreover, the Examiner explains that each file is
stored in a volume which has a volume block number (Ans. 3).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants readily concede each and every one of
these points including that files are inherently associated with inodes in
inode-based files systems, but Appellants do not conceive of any rationale
by which the disclosures of these items, individually or in combination, can
be reasonably construed as being equivalent of a reference stream that
includes "reference map" constructs composed as claimed (Reply Br. 4). 1
Appellants do not explain why the reference mapping as addressed by the
1 Appellants further argue that the newly cited paragraphs and explanations
by the Examiner constitute new grounds of rejection (Reply Br. 3--4). We
note that whether new paragraphs/explanation should have been addressed
under new grounds is a petitionable matter-not appealable. Thus, we do
not address the argument herein.
4
Appeal 2018-001511
Application 14/217 ,941
Examiner as enumerated supra does not correlate with the mapping as
claimed.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the combination
teaches or suggests the limitation of "reference maps that each associate an
inode with one or more mappings between a file block number and a volume
block number," as recited in claim 1.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner does not describe the
manner in which anything taught by Prahlad, Edwards, or Jacobson would
motivate or otherwise result in one skilled in the art to modify Prahlad's
homogeneous replication system to a heterogeneous system that translates as
part of a replication process (i.e., backs up inode based file system data as
object-based storage object) (App. Br. 12). Appellants, while agreeing that
Jacobson is at least conceivably combinable with Prahlad, contend the result
would be a system that replicates object-based storage objects as object
based storage objects (App. Br. 12).
The Examiner relied on the teaching of Edwards that data is translated
before it is transferred to the destination so that the data is appropriately
stored in the destination system (Ans. 3 citing paras. 9 and 11 ). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in art, having the teachings of Prahlad to include Edward to have file block
volume number, volume block number, and translating the file block number
and volume block number into the destination storage format to have the
predictable results such as to identify the object faster and also to keep
consistency of the source storage and the destination storage format (Ans. 4).
The Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Prahlad and Edward to
include Jacobson to have combined the object-based data storage system to
5
Appeal 2018-001511
Application 14/217 ,941
have the predictable results such as to organize the data in a more efficient
way and also to restore data faster (Ans. 4).
Appellants in the Reply Brief state that nowhere does the Answer
explain why one of ordinary skill in the art may be inclined to combine the
object-based storage technology such as disclosed by Jacobson with the file
system-based paradigms disclosed in Prahlad and Edwards (Reply Br. 5).
Appellants do not address why the rationale for the combination and
teachings as addressed in the Answer and enumerated above are deficient to
explain why one skilled in the art would store data from a file based system
to an object based system "to organize the data in a more efficient way and
also to restore data faster" following translation since Edwards teaches
translation prior to sending to the destination storage of interest (see Ans. 4).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-3, 7-13, 39 and 43-60.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 7-13, 39, and 43-60 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6