Ex Parte Resch

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

12762350 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018)

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.
12/762,350 04/18/2010 JASON K.RESCH CS00248/END920165812US7 3287
89322 7590 02/01/2018
Garlick & Markison (IBM)
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
JACOB, AJITH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2018 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):
MMURDOCK@ TEXASPATENTS .COM
bpierotti @ texaspatents .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON K. RESCH
Appeal 2017-006956
Application 12/762,350
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—4 and 18—21, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appeal 2017-006956
Application 12/762,350
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
information storage. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
encoding a data segment of data in accordance with a dispersed
storage error encoding function to produce a plurality of data slices;
calculating a plurality of integrity indicators for the plurality of data
slices using a hash;
performing a function on the plurality of integrity indicators to
produce an integrity record the integrity record based on a cached hash for
the plurality of integrity indicators for each of the plurality of data slices;
creating a plurality of copies of the integrity record;
for each of the plurality of data slices, appending one of the plurality
of copies of the integrity record to a corresponding one of the plurality of
data slices to produce a plurality of modified data slices; and
transmitting the plurality of modified data slices to slice storage units
for storage therein.
References and Rejection
Claims 1—4 and 18—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sandstrom (US 5,619,571, pat. Apr. 8, 1997),
Dhuse (US 2009/0094250 Al, pub. Apr. 9, 2009), Swidler (US
2005/0125569 Al, pub. Jun. 9, 2005), and Li (US 2009/0006853 Al, pub.
Jan. 1, 2009).
2
Appeal 2017-006956
Application 12/762,350
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.1
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
I
Appellant contends Sandstrom and Dhuse do not collectively teach
“performing a function on the plurality of integrity indicators to produce an
integrity record,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See Br. 6. In
particular, Appellant asserts in Dhuse, “[bjecause checksums are calculated
per slice, a function is performed on the data itself not the integrity
indicator.” Br. 7.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. The Examiner maps the
claimed integrity indicators to Dhuse’s checksum. See Ans. 3. Further,
Dhuse teaches “checksums are . . . appended to each of the data slices”
(Dhuse 124). Because Appellant does not contend the Specification
specifically defines the term “performing a function,” the Examiner’s
interpretation of the term is reasonable. As a result, the Examiner correctly
determines “performing a function on the plurality of integrity indicators” is
taught or at least suggested by Dhuse’s appending checksums to each of the
data slices. See Ans. 3.2
1 To the extent Appellant’s advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
2 As a result, the Examiner maps the claimed integrity record to Dhuse’s
data slices appended with checksums.
3
Appeal 2017-006956
Application 12/762,350
II
Appellant contends Sandstrom, Dhuse, and Swidler do not
collectively teach “for each of the plurality of data slices, appending one of
the plurality of copies of the integrity record to a corresponding one of the
plurality of data slices to produce a plurality of modified data slices,” as
recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See Br. 7—9. In particular, Appellant
asserts in Swidler, “[sjimply adding redundant data does not equate to
adding copies of an integrity record.” Br. 7.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. The Examiner finds—and
Appellant does not dispute—Swidler teaches appending redundant data to a
corresponding one of the plurality of data slices. See Ans. 3^4. As
discussed above, the Examiner maps the claimed integrity record to Dhuse’s
data slices appended with checksums. See Ans. 3. Therefore, Sandstrom,
Dhuse, and Swidler collectively teach “appending one of the plurality of
copies of the integrity record to a corresponding one of the plurality of
[integrity records, which include data slices appended with checksums]”
(emphasis added). Accordingly, Sandstrom, Dhuse, and Swidler collectively
teach or at least suggest “appending one of the plurality of copies of the
integrity record to a corresponding one of the plurality of data slices,” as
recited in claim 1.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent
claims 18 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2—\ and 19-21, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive
arguments about those claims.
4
Appeal 2017-006956
Application 12/762,350
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4 and 18—21.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5