Ex Parte Periyagaram et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2014

12245669 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SUBRAMANIAN PERIYAGARAM, RAHUL KHONA,
DNYANESHWAR PAWAR,
and SANDEEP YADAV
____________

Appeal 2012-005321
Application 12/245,669
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–10 and 13–24. Claims 11 and 12 are
withdrawn (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention relates to a system and method for organizing data.
(See Spec. ¶ 1.)
Appeal 2012-005321
Application 12/245,669

2
Claims 1 and 21 are representative and are reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
dividing a set of data which is defined as a plurality of
blocks into a plurality of chunks in a network storage system,
wherein boundaries of the chunks are independent of
boundaries of the blocks; and
storing metadata of the set of data, including pointers for
locating the data, in a hierarchical structure in the network
storage system, the hierarchical structure including a plurality
of levels, each level including at least one node;
wherein a lowest level of the plurality of levels includes a
plurality of nodes that each contain chunk metadata, and in each
said node that contains chunk metadata, the chunk metadata
identifies at least one of the chunks.

21. A network storage system comprising:
means for communicating with a plurality of storage
clients over a network;
means for determining a plurality of anchor points for a
set of data defined as a plurality of blocks;
means for dividing the set of data into a plurality of
chunks according to the plurality of anchor points, wherein
boundaries of the chunks are independent of boundaries of the
plurality of blocks;
means for writing the plurality of chunks into a plurality
of chunk files;
means for storing metadata including block pointers of
the set of data in a hierarchical structure in the network storage
system, the hierarchical structure including a plurality of levels,
each said level including at least one node, wherein a lowest
level of the plurality of levels includes a plurality of nodes that
each store chunk metadata, wherein in each said node that
contains chunk metadata the chunk metadata identifies at least
one chunk in the plurality chunk flies; and
means for sharing a chunk, of the plurality of chunks,
between two files to reduce duplication of data in said chunk,
wherein each of the two files is represented by a hierarchical
Appeal 2012-005321
Application 12/245,669

3
structure that includes lowest level node that includes chunk
metadata identifying the shared chunk.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter (Ans. 4).
The Examiner rejected claims 1–10 and 13–24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Kazar (US 2010/0011037 A1; published Jan. 14,
2010) (Ans. 5).

ISSUES
Based on Appellants’ contentions, we discuss the rejections under
§ 101 by reference to claim 21 and we discuss the rejections under § 102 by
reference to claim 1. The issues presented by Appellants’ contentions are as
follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding claims 21 and 22 are directed to non-
statutory subject matter?
Did the Examiner err in finding Kazar discloses dividing a set of data
defined as a plurality of blocks into a plurality of chunks in a network
storage system, where boundaries of the chunks are independent of
boundaries of the blocks, as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding Kazar discloses a lowest level of the
plurality of levels in a hierarchical structure includes a plurality of nodes that
each contain chunk metadata, and in each said node that contains chunk
metadata, the chunk metadata identifies at least one of the chunks, as recited
in claim 1?
Appeal 2012-005321
Application 12/245,669

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claim 21 is directed to “[a] network storage system comprising:
means for communicating . . . .” The Examiner concludes paragraph 63 of
“the specification describes said system as being merely software . . .” (Ans.
4.) Appellants contend paragraph 63 only refers to embodiments that
include hardware. (App. Br. 7.) Additionally, on page 4 of the Appeal
Brief, Appellants identify the “means for communicating” in claim 21 as
corresponding to element 104 in Figure 10 of their Specification. Element
104 is a hardware network adapter, such as “an Ethernet adapter or Fibre
Channel adapter.” (See Spec. ¶ 62.) As Appellants have identified a
hardware network adapter as the “means for communicating” as recited in
claim 21, we disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the system of
claim 21 is “merely software.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 21 and 22 as directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101.1

1 In the event of further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may
wish to review all of the independent claims, including claim 21, for
compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued preliminary
examination instructions on patent-eligible subject matter. See “Preliminary
Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice
Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.” Memorandum from
Andrew H. Hirshfeld, USPTO, to Patent Examining Corps (June 25, 2014),
available at
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf.
Appeal 2012-005321
Application 12/245,669

5
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Kazar fails to
disclose “chunks” having the characteristics recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 8–
10.) The Examiner finds at least paragraph 13 of Kazar discloses the
disputed limitations. (See Ans. 5.) The Examiner concludes the portion of a
file in Kazar constitutes a block of the file, i.e., the set of data. (Id.) The
Examiner further concludes the first and second segments disclose a
plurality of chunks. (Id.) Moreover, the Examiner also points to paragraph
30 of Kazar (Ans. 18), which describes how an interface stores each segment
as a plurality of data chunks distributed among several disks. Thus, as the
Examiner finds, the segments in Kazar are part of “the set of data” recited in
claim 1. (See Ans. 18–19.) The Examiner also concludes the boundaries of
the chunks are “independent of boundaries of the blocks,” as recited in claim
1, because the segments (chunks) exist before each portion (block) is stored
into each segment. (Id.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions.
Appellants also argue Kazar discloses no hierarchical structure in
which its lowest level includes a plurality of nodes that each contain chunk
metadata and for each node that contains chunk metadata, the chunk meta
data identifies at least one of the chunks (Ans. 11.) We disagree. As the
Examiner finds, the fields stored in each inode in Figure 12 of Kazar contain
information (e.g., metadata) describing the segments (e.g., chunks), and
further identifying the segments. (Ans. 21, citing Kazar, ¶ 121.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 1.
Appellants have not presented separate arguments for claims 2–10 and 13–
Appeal 2012-005321
Application 12/245,669

6
24, with respect to this issue. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102
rejection of claims 1–10 and 13–24.

DECISION
We affirm the § 102 rejection of claims 1–10 and 13–24.
We reverse the § 101 rejection of claims 21 and 22.
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

tj