Ex Parte Paulzagade et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2016

13305964 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2016)

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.
13/305,964 11/29/2011 Sudhakar PAULZAGADE QUAP125US 1100
29393 7590 11/16/2016
ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
NATIONAL CITY BANK BUILDING
629 EUCLID AVE., SUITE 1000
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
TRUONG, DENNIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2016 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):
Docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUDHAKAR PAULZAGADE, AJAY KUSHWAH,
and CAO WU
Appeal 2015-006770
Application 13/305,9641
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1,3, 5—7, 10, and 23, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to creating a synthetic backup of data using
only metadata rather than accessing the backup data itself. Abstract.
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Quantum Corp. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-006770
Application 13/305,964
1. A method, comprising:
accessing first information associated with an existing
backup data set, the first information being stored on a non-
transitory computer-readable medium, the existing backup data
set residing on a backup appliance, where the existing backup
data set comprises one or more blocklets arranged in one or more
binary large objects;
the first information being metadata concerning a binary
large object location, a binary large object size, a binary large
object identifier, a binary large object order, a blocklet location,
a blocklet size, a blocklet identifier, and a blocklet order;
instantiating, on a non-transitory computer-readable
medium, second information associated with a synthetic backup
data set to be created; and
selectively manipulating the second information to create
the synthetic backup data set, where the manipulating is based,
at least in part, on the first information, and where the synthetic
backup data set includes just metadata,
where the synthetic backup data set is logically created
from one or more elements of the existing backup data set
without physically reading data from the existing backup data set
from the backup appliance and without physically writing a
backup data set to the backup appliance.
Rejection
Claims 1, 3, 5—7, 10, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Parab (US 2011/0161297 Al; June 30, 2011). Final Act. 5.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Parab discloses “selectively
manipulating the second information to create the synthetic backup data set,
where the manipulating is based, at least in part, on the first information, and
where the synthetic backup data set includes just metadata,” and “where the
synthetic backup data set is logically created from one or more elements of
the existing backup data set without physically reading data from the
2
Appeal 2015-006770
Application 13/305,964
existing backup data set from the backup appliance and without physically
writing a backup data set to the backup appliance,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Parab discloses creating a “synthetic backup” for cloud storage. Parab
115. Specifically, Parab discloses:
A synthetic backup is a complete backup data set created by
copying portions of data from two or more previous backup data
sets, including one full backup data set followed by one or more
incremental backup data set. An embodiment of the invention
can efficiently create synthetic backups from previously created
backup data sets stored locally within a cloud data storage
without accessing backup data, retrieving backup data from the
cloud storage service, transferring additional backup data to the
cloud storage service, or requiring extensive data processing at
the cloud storage service.
Id. 114 (emphasis added). Appellants focus on the first sentence, arguing
Parab defines synthetic backup as copying data. Br. 12—14. The Examiner
focuses on the second sentence, finding a synthetic backup is created without
accessing backup data. Ans. 3—5. Appellants argue the latter merely means
“without moving data from the cloud to a local processor” because the goal
of Parab is minimizing traffic to and from the cloud, so backup data is still
copied within the cloud, according to Appellants. Br. 14.
We have fully considered Appellants’ arguments but are not
persuaded of Examiner error. Even if a synthetic backup is created by
“copying portions of data from two or more previous backup data sets,”
Appellants have not sufficiently persuaded us what data is copied, nor how
that relates to the claim terms used in Appellants’ claim 1.
In Parab, data originally comes in the form of a data stream, which the
system then divides (i.e., “segments”) into multiple data segments. Parab
3
Appeal 2015-006770
Application 13/305,964
63—65. “Each segment is associated with a label.” Id. 1 65. A “[l]abel
map includes a sequence of labels corresponding with the sequence of data
segments identified in the segmented data stream.” Id. Thus, the system
“can reconstruct the original data stream by matching in sequence each label
in a label map with its corresponding segment data.” Id. “Because the label
is smaller than the corresponding segment data, representing redundant
segment data using multiple instances of the same label results in a
substantial size reduction of the data stream.” Id. 1 66.
Backup systems store data in “backup data sets.” Parab H 2—3.
Parab’s “backup data sets” include “data segments, labels, and label maps.”
Id. 1 86; Br. 16. Appellants assume Parab copies the data segments (i.e., the
underlying backup data), but we agree with the Examiner that “nowhere is
there any mention of actually READING or Writing the backup data,” and
instead “the copying is of the information regarding the backup data [i.e., the
labels] and not the actual backup data.” Ans. 4; see also id. at 5.
Specifically, Parab discloses “access[ing] the label map for the previously
created backup data set” and “add[ing] the identified labels to a new label
map representing the synthetic backup.” Parab ^fl[ 90-91; Ans. 5. Thus,
“there is no need to directly copy or otherwise access the backup data or
corresponding data segments from previously created backup data sets.
Instead, the creation of the synthetic backup can be performed as a
manipulation of labels and label mans.” Parab 195 (emphasis added); Ans.
5. We therefore find that Parab creates the synthetic backup data set from
labels and label maps, not data segments.
Although not expressly argued by Appellants, in the interests of
furthering prosecution, we address whether Parab’s labels and label map fall
4
Appeal 2015-006770
Application 13/305,964
within the claim scope of “data from the existing backup data set,” as this
influences whether Parab discloses creating a synthetic backup data set
“without physically reading data from the existing backup data set.” Cf. Br.
16 (asserting “[a] backup data set includes label maps and data segments”)
(emphasis added). We note Parab in some cases uses the same terms as the
present application but gives them a broader or narrower interpretation. For
purposes of anticipation, the terminology of the claims of the present
application controls, not the prior art. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“the name of the game is the claim”). We find that
Parab’s label map constitutes what the present application calls metadata.
For example, Parab’s label map “includes a sequence of one or more labels
corresponding with the sequence of data segments in all or a portion of a
deduplicated data stream,” Parab 178, which is the same as how the present
application describes metadata: “The metadata may include, for example, a
list of blocklets stored in the BLOB.” Spec. 123, claim 1 (“the first
information being metadata concerning ... a blocklet order”). Consistent
with Appellants’ disclosure, “existing backup data set” excludes such
“metadata.” See Spec. FIG. 6 (showing “Backup Data Seti” as excluding
“Metadatai”), claim 1 (having “first information associated with an existing
backup data set,” and “the first information being metadata”) (emphasis
added). Thus, as applied to Parab, the claimed “existing backup data set”
includes Parab’s data segments but excludes Parab’s label map. As
discussed above, Parab’s synthetic backup data set is created by accessing
label maps but not data segments. Therefore we find Parab’s synthetic
backup data set is created “without physically reading data from the existing
backup data set” (i.e., without reading the data segments).
5
Appeal 2015-006770
Application 13/305,964
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 3, 5—7, 10, and 23, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar
reasons. See Br. 19; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1,3, 5—7, 10, and 23.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6