Ex Parte Sawicki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2014

12143134 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2014)

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.
12/143,134 06/20/2008 Antoni SAWICKI GRID-00100 8766
34051 7590 08/20/2014
Stevens Law Group
1754 Technology Drive
Suite #226
San Jose, CA 95110
EXAMINER
BECHTEL, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/20/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANTONI SAWICKI and TOMASZ NOWAK
____________

Appeal 2012-005362
Application 12/143,134
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN A. EVANS,
and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 and 3–23. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-005362
Application 12/143,134

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to the distribution of files within a
network. (See Spec. 1:8–9.) Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as
follows:
1. A storage pool component operable on a computing
device including a storage medium having an otherwise free
storage capacity for forming a portion of a storage capacity of a
storage pool and being operably connected across a network to
at least one other storage pool component, each storage pool
component operating on a computing device providing a
respective portion of said storage pool capacity, said storage
pool component comprising:
configuration data identifying said at least one other
computing device to which said computing device may connect
across said network;
a directory for identifying file information for files of
said storage pool stored on said storage medium, said file
information being stored with a degree of redundancy across
said computing devices of said storage pool;
a verifier responsive to instantiation of said component
for communicating with at least one other component operating
on one of said at least one other computing devices and for
verifying the contents of said directory;
a reconciler for reconciling file information stored on
said storage medium with file information from the remainder
of said storage pool; and
a driver, responsive to an access request for a file stored
in said storage pool received across said network from another
component of said storage pool, for:
determining a location of said file on said storage
medium from said directory; and
accessing said file accordingly.
Appeal 2012-005362
Application 12/143,134

3
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Richard et al.
(hereinafter “Richard”)
US 2005/0015461 A1 Jan. 20, 2005
Gallagher et al.
(hereinafter “Gallagher”)
US 2007/0067332 A1 Mar. 22, 2007
Paul et al.
(hereinafter “Paul”)
US 2007/0276966 Al Nov. 29, 2007
Sushant Goel and Rajkumar Buyya, Data Replication Strategies in
Wide-Area Distributed Systems, in ENTERPRISE SERVICE COMPUTING:
FROM CONCEPT TO DEPLOYMENT 211 (2006) (hereinafter “Goel”).
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 13–19, and 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gallagher, Richard, and Paul. (See Ans.
5–16.)
Claims 5, 10–12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gallagher, Richard, Paul, and Goel. (See Ans. 16–
18.)

ANALYSIS
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 13–19, and 21–23
Appellants argue that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 1
because the Examiner’s proposed combination fails to disclose five features:
(1) file verification; (2) file reconciliation; (3) a driver with legacy support;
(4) a driver through which a user application running on a server can access
a storage pool while a storage pool component responds to requests from
Appeal 2012-005362
Application 12/143,134

4
other storage pool components running on other servers; and (5) executing
file operations on stored files, such as modifying a stored file and saving the
modified file into the same stored file. (See App. Br. 11–14.) We disagree
with Appellants. Further, we note Appellants indicate that independent
claims 1 and 23 recite similar features. (See id. at 11.)
a. File verification
Recognizing that Gallagher fails to disclose file verification, the
Examiner relies on Richard for teaching this feature. (See Ans. 7.) While
Appellants agree with the Examiner’s finding as to Gallagher, (see App. Br.
11), Appellants do not present any arguments rebutting the Examiner’s
finding as to Richard. We are therefore unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner’s finding that the proposed combination discloses file verification.
See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding “the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
b. File reconciliation
Appellants contend there is no motivation to combine Gallagher and
Richard because the two systems operate differently, the Gallagher system
being implemented on a peer-to-peer network and the Richard system being
implemented on a conventional server. (See App. Br. 13.) Appellants
further contend there is no need for reconciling files in the Gallagher system
due to the redundancy across multiple machines in a peer-to-peer network.
(See id.) By contrast, the Examiner takes the position that the Gallagher and
Richard systems are analogous because the nodes in each system function as
both clients and servers. (See Ans. 26; see also Richard ¶ 43, Fig. 2.) The
Appeal 2012-005362
Application 12/143,134

5
Examiner also explains that Richard teaches file modification and
reconciliation for the modification, features that would enhance any
distributed file system. (See Ans. 26.) Thus, as the Examiner finds, the
teachings in Richard suggest updating the Gallagher system to include file
modification and reconciliation. (See id. at 26–27.) We are therefore
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that the proposed
combination teaches or suggests file reconciliation.
c. A driver with legacy support
Agreeing with the Examiner, Appellants contend neither Gallagher
nor Richard discloses a driver with legacy support. (See App. Br. 11–12; see
also Ans. 7.) Appellants explain as to Gallagher that the reference fails to
teach a storage pool in the form of a driver. (See App. Br. 11.) As the
Examiner points out, however, the claims do not recite a storage pool in the
form of a driver. (See Ans. 21.) As the Examiner also points out, claim 1
does not even recite a driver with legacy support. (See id. at 20, 26.) Thus,
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim.
We are nonetheless unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding
that the applied prior art discloses a driver with legacy support. As the
Examiner points out, it is claim 23 that recites a driver with legacy support.
(See Ans. 20, 26; see also App. Br. 21.) Appellants’ arguments therefore
seem to apply to claim 23, even though they are presented with respect to
claim 1. (See App. Br. 11–12.) We note the Examiner relies neither on
Gallagher nor Richard but relies instead on Paul for teaching a driver with
legacy support. (See Ans. 7–8, 20, 25, 30.) Appellants do not, however,
rebut persuasively the Examiner’s finding as to Paul. Appellants contend
without explanation that Paul fails to cure the deficiencies of Gallagher and
Appeal 2012-005362
Application 12/143,134

6
Richard. (See App. Br. 14.) Further, Appellants contend there is no
motivation to combine Paul with Gallagher because Paul does not relate to
distributing a storage volume over a network of peers. (See id.) Appellants
do not persuasively show error in the Examiner’s proffered reason, (see Ans.
8–9), which has a rational underpinning. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)). Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
d. Executing file operations on stored files, such as
modifying a stored file and saving the modified file into
the same stored file
In discussing Gallagher, Appellants contend the reference fails to
disclose “execution of file operations on stored files, such as modifying a
stored file and saving the modified file into the same stored file.” (See App.
Br. 12.) As the Examiner points out, however, claim 1 does not recite this
feature. (See Ans. 21.) Appellants’ arguments therefore are not
commensurate in scope with the claim. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded
that the Examiner’s proposed combination is improper for failing to disclose
the argued feature.
e. A driver through which a user application running on a
server can access a storage pool while a storage pool
component responds to requests from other storage pool
components running on other servers
In discussing Richard, Appellants contend the reference fails to
disclose “a driver through which a user application running on a server can
access a storage pool, while the storage pool component is responding to
requests from other storage pool components running on other servers.”
(See App. Br. 12.) As the Examiner points out, however, claim 1 does not
recite this feature. (See Ans. 25.) Appellants’ arguments therefore are not
Appeal 2012-005362
Application 12/143,134

7
commensurate in scope with the claim. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded
that the Examiner’s proposed combination is improper for failing to disclose
the argued feature.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 13–19, and 21–23.
2. Claims 5, 10–12, and 20
Maintaining Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 1,
Appellants contend Goel fails to cure the argued deficiencies of Gallagher,
Richard, and Paul discussed above. (See App. Br. 14–15.) Appellants note
Goel does not disclose distributing a storage volume over a network of
peers. (See id. at 15.) Without further explanation from Appellants, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5, 10–12, and 20. See
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.

Appeal 2012-005362
Application 12/143,134

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3–23 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kis