Ex Parte Reddy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12130517 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/130,517 05/30/2008
131406 7590 06/02/2016
Gilliam IP PLLC (CA)
7200 N. Mopac
Suite 440
Austin, TX 78731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chandra Reddy
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.
2586.005US 1 4117
EXAMINER
KUDDUS, DANIEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
uspto@gilliamip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHANDRA REDDY, PRAT AP KARONDE, and
PRASHANT PARIKH
Appeal2014-004244
Application 12/130,517
Technology Center 2100
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-9 and 23-31. Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal2014-004244
Application 12/130,517
Claims 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Manasse (US 2006/0085561 Al; Apr. 20, 2006). Non-Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 1-9, 23-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Manasse and Whiting (US 5,778,395; July 7, 1998). Non-Final
Act. 5-11.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to data boundary identification. Title.
Claim 29 is illustrative and reproduced below:
29. A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a set of data;
identifying successive subsets of data within the set of data using a
processor;
calculating a boundary identifying hash on a subset of data using the
processor;
comparing the calculated boundary identifying hash with a boundary
indicating value;
when the calculated boundary identifying hash is equal to the
boundary indicating value, identifying a natural boundary for a chunk of
data in the set of data using the processor; and
calculating a combined signature for the chunk of data using a hash
and the boundary identifying hash.
ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 29 AND 31 BY MANASSE
The Examiner finds Manasse describes all limitations of claim 29.
Non-Final Act. 3--4.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
2
Appeal2014-004244
Application 12/130,517
1. "Manasse's disclosure [(Manasse if 150)] of a 'small subset of
objects['] denoted by: OAI, OA2, .... [sic], 0An is not a disclosure of
successive subsets of data within the set of data. It is merely a manner to
identify small subsets." App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 1.
11. "[T]here is no disclosure in either paragraph [(Manasse iii! 26,
163)] that the calculated hashes relate in any way to a boundary
identification of the data chunks." App. Br. 8.
111.
While paragraph [0062] mentions the use of fingerprinting to
determine chunk boundaries, it does not disclose comparing a
boundary identifying hash with a boundary identifying value.
Paragraph [0026] only relates to a Device A comparing a hash to
a hash of Device B, paragraph [0065] only relates to the selection
of a chunking parameter, and paragraph [O 152] only relates to
using signatures as a proxy for chunk equality.
App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 1-2.
1v. "None of these cited paragraphs [(Manasse iii! 26, 65, 106,
163)] disclose a calculation of a combined signature." App. Br. 8; see also
Reply Br. 1-2.
Appellants do not show error in the Examiner's findings.
Regarding Appellants' argument i, we agree with and adopt as our
own the Examiner's finding that Manasse's candidate objects (OA1, OA2, ... ,
0An) on the receiver describe the recited step in claim 29 of "identifying
successive subsets of data within the set of data." Non-Final Act. 3 (citing
Manasse if 150). We also agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
further explanation concerning successive subsets of data that the "subsets
are represented OA1, OA2, ... , OAn, which is a consecutive order (e.g.
following one after another)." Ans. 4 (citing Manasse iii! 150, 159).
3
Appeal2014-004244
Application 12/130,517
Regarding Appellants' arguments ii and iii, we agree with and adopt
as our own the Examiner's findings that Manasee's chunking procedure
describes the recited steps in claim 29 of:
calculating a boundary identifying hash on a subset of data
using the processor;
comparing the calculated boundary identifying hash with
a boundary indicating value;
when the calculated boundary identifying hash is equal to
the boundary indicating value, identifying a natural boundary for
a chunk of data in the set of data using the processor.
Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Manasse i-fi-126, 62, 65, 152, 163); see also Ans. 5.
Manasse (i-f 62) describes "the chunking procedure uses the value of
the fingerprinting function and one or more additional chunking parameters
to determine the chunk boundaries." Thus, Manasse' s application of the
fingerprinting function to objects during the chunking procedure describes
the claim limitations (the fingerprinting function calculates a boundary
identifying hash used to determine chunk boundaries, i.e., natural
boundaries). That is, the fingerprinting function calculates a boundary
identifying hash, and when Manasse determines a chunk boundary using the
fingerprinting function, Manasse has identified a natural boundary in the
manner claimed. See Manasee i162; see also Manasee i144 ("Chunk
boundaries are determined at positions in the Object for which the
fingerprinting function computes to a value that satisfies a chosen
condition") and Ans. 5.
Regarding Appellants' argument iv, we agree with and adopt as our
own the Examiner's finding that Manasse' s signatures for chunks describe
the recited step in claim 29 of "calculating a combined signature for the
4
Appeal2014-004244
Application 12/130,517
chunk of data using a hash and the boundary identifying hash." Non-Final
Act. 4 (citing Manasse i1i126, 65, 106, 163).
Manasse (i-f 26) describes "[a] set of signatures such as strong hashes
(SHA) for the chunks are computed locally by both the devices." Thus,
Manasse' s signatures for chunks describe the claim limitations. That is, a
signature (strong hash) in Manasse is a combined signature for a chunk of
data, and is calculated using a hash (Manasse' s strong hash) and the
boundary identifying hash (Manasse' s fingerprinting function is used to
determine the chunk boundary). See Manasse i1i126, 44, 62.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 29, as well as
claim 31, which is not separately argued with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-9, 23-28, AND 30 OVER
MANASSE AND WHITING
Claims 1-9 and 23
The Examiner finds Manasse and Whiting teach all limitations of
claim 1. Non-Final Act. 5-7. Claim 1 recites identical subject matter as
claim 29, except for the last element, in which claim 1 recites "calculating a
combined signature for the chunk of data using a hash, a chunk length, and a
checksum" (emphasis on non-identical subject matter). The Examiner relies
on Manasse for all limitations of claim 1, except for the using a checksum,
for which the Examiner relies on Whiting. Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Whiting
col. 7, 11. 41--43; col. 13, 11. 41-50; col. 15, 11. 14--33; col. 18, 11. 40-50).
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. Manasse does not include a chunk length in a combined
signature. App. Br. 10.
5
Appeal2014-004244
Application 12/130,517
11. "While the cited sections of Whiting separately refer to either a
checksum or a signature, the cited sections of Whiting do not disclose the
claimed feature of a combined signature including a checksum." App. Br.
1 O; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellants do not show error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do
Appellants show error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' argument i, we agree with and adopt as our
own the Examiner's finding that Manasse's signatures for chunks describe
the recited step in claim 1 of "calculating a combined signature for the chunk
of data using a hash, a chunk length." Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Manasse i-fi-1
26, 33, 107).
Manasse (i-f 26) describes "[a] set of signatures such as strong hashes
(SHA) for the chunks are computed locally by both the devices." Manasse
(i-f 26) (emphasis added) describes "device B (101) transmits its computed
list of signatures and chunk lengths 1-n to device A ( 100) over the network
102."
Thus, Manasse' s signatures for chunks describe the claim limitations
(strong hash used to calculate the signature for the chunk; combined
signature is composed of the transmited chunk signature and chunk length).
Regarding Appellants' argument ii,
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
6
Appeal2014-004244
Application 12/130,517
Here, the Examiner relies on Whiting for the using a checksum. Non-
Final Act. 6. (citing Whiting col. 7, 11. 41--43; col. 13, 11. 41-50; col. 15, 11.
14--33; col. 18, 11. 40-50). The Examiner reasons the claimed invention
would have been obvious based on the combined teachings of the references.
Non-Final Act. 6-7. We agree with the Examiner.
In short, given Manasse already teaches a combined signature as
discussed above, in light of Whiting's teaching of a checksum, using a
checksum in the combined signature would have been a predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions - an obvious
improvement. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary
skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used
to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [ v. Ag Pro, Inc.,
425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock[, Inc. v.
Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative-a
court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
dependent claims 2-9 and 23, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
7
Appeal2014-004244
Application 12/130,517
Claims 24-28, and 30
The Examiner finds Manasse and Whiting teach all limitations of
claim 24. Non-Final Act. 9.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. "Manasse makes no disclosure of data boundaries in either
paragraph [0028] or [00150]. Paragraph [0028] only relates to data storage
devices in general, and paragraph [O 150] only relates to subsets of data."
App. Br. 9.
11. "[W]hile paragraph [0026] mentions a strong hash algorithm,
neither paragraph [0026] nor paragraph [0163] discloses a rolling hash
algorithm." App. Br. 9.
111. Manasse does not teach the combined signature includes a
chunk length. App. Br. 10.
1v. Whiting does not teach the combined signature includes a
chunk checksum. App. Br. 1 O; see also Reply Br. 2.
v.
Paragraph [O 119] of Manasse relates to a comparison of the cost
of computing local maxima and chunking, column 18 of Whiting
relates to storing fingerprints in backup data, and column 19 of
Whiting relates to using fingerprint data to identify probable
matches in a file. Neither Manasse nor Whiting discloses the
claimed feature of comparing combined signatures to data chunk
combined signatures of backed up chunks, and backing up the
data chunk when the comparison indicates that the data chunk
has not already been backed up.
App. Br. 11.
Appellants do not show error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do
Appellants show error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness.
8
Appeal2014-004244
Application 12/130,517
Regarding Appellants' argument i, Manasse's candidate objects (OAI,
0 A2, ... , 0 An) on the receiver describe the recited step in claim 24 of
"identifying successive variable size chunks of data between boundaries
within the set of data." See Manasse i-f 150. As explained above when
addressing claim 29, each candidate object in Manasse is a subset of data as
recited; thus, the collection of candidate objects includes the recited
successive variable size chunks of data between boundaries.
Regarding Appellants' argument ii, we agree with and adopt as our
own the Examiner's further explanation: "Manasse teaches additional
limitations 'using rolling hash algorithm' as recited in claim 24. See
Manasse, [0141], [0143], [0144]." Ans. 9. Manasse (i-f 144) discloses: "Each
call to CutPoint also requires re-computing the rolling hash at the last
position in the window being updated."
Regarding Appellants' arguments iii and iv, we see no error in the
Examiner's findings and conclusions for reasons discussed above with
respect to claim 1.
Regarding Appellants' argument v, we agree with and adopt as our
own the Examiner's finding:
Whiting teaches backed up chunks and backing up the data chunk
when the comparison indicates the data chunk[] has not already
been backed up (see Whiting, column 18, line 50-57, backup
data file to facilitate such bandwidth optimizations, column 19,
line 22-26, identify areas of probable matches and then fully
validate them by extracting the old file contents and performing
a complete compare).
Non-Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 11-12.
That is, Whiting (Abstract) discloses: "In addition, differences
between a file and its version in the previous backup may be computed so
9
Appeal2014-004244
Application 12/130,517
that only the changes to the file need to be written on the backup storage
means." Whiting (col. 18, 11. 50-57) further discloses:
In the preferred embodiment, although there is no absolute need
to use the fingerprints (since the previous file contents can be
explicitly produced for chunk matching), the fingerprints are
stored in the backup data file anyway to facilitate such bandwidth
optimizations; in particular, even over local area networks it may
be desirable to minimize network traffic when backing up large
files with only small modifications.
Put another way, Whiting, when combined with Manasse, describes
the recited comparing the calculated combined signature to data chunk
combined signatures of backed up chunks by teaching fingerprints are used
for chunk matching, and backing up the data chunk when the comparison
indicates the data chunk has not already been backed up because Whiting
teaches only changes to the file need to be written on the backup storage.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24, as well as
dependent claims 25-28 and 30, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 23-31 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)(l ).
AFFIRMED
10