Ex Parte Sayed et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13630353 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/630,353
36378 7590
VMWARE, INC.
DARRYL SMITH
FILING DATE
09/28/2012
09/01/2016
3401 Hillview Ave.
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
IMRANQ. SAYED
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.
A884 3312
EXAMINER
SULTANA, NARGIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
ipteam@vmware.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IMRAN Q. SAYED and JA YESH SESHADRI
Appeal2015-005301
Application 13/630,353
Technology Center 2100
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to automated document replication in a
distributed computing system. Abstract. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are
independent. Claims 1 and 7, which are illustrative of the invention and the
arguments on appeal, read as follows:
1 Appellants identify VMware, Incorporated as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-005301
Application 13/630,353
1. A method of automated document replication m a
distributed computing system, said method comprising:
analyzing, by a processor, data content of a document at a
first node of a distributed computing system;
determining, based on said analysis, whether said
document has a multi-node affinity; and
in response to determining that said document has said
multi-node affinity, automatically replicating at least one
document between indicated nodes of said distributed computing
system, said indicated nodes indicated based on context of said
multi-node affinity of said document.
7. A method of automated document replication m a
distributed computing system, said method comprising:
analyzing, by a processor, references within data content
of a first document at a first node of a distributed computing
system;
determining, based on said analysis, whether said first
document references documents stored external to said first
node; and
in response to determining that said first document
references documents external to said first node, automatically
replicating at least one document between indicated nodes of said
distributed computing system so as to facilitate local query
processing of any joins to said first document, said indicated
nodes indicated based on external references of said first
document.
App. Br. 13-14 (emphases added).
2
Appeal2015-005301
Application 13/630,353
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 5-16, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated byNeeman et al. (US 5,588,147; Dec. 24, 1996)
("Neeman"). Final Act. 6-14.
Claims 3, 4, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Neeman and Chan et al. (US 2007 /0043728
Al; Feb. 22, 2007). Final Act. 15-17.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants' arguments persuade us the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 7-12 as anticipated by the cited portions ofNeeman. With
respect to the remaining claims and rejections, however, we agree with, and
adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and conclusions. We provide the
following to highlight and address specific arguments.
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5-16, and 19 as Anticipated by Neeman
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Neeman discloses
"determining, based on said analysis, whether said document has a multi-
node affinity," as recited in independent claim 1 and independent claim 13;
and in finding Neeman discloses "determining, based on said analysis,
whether said first document references documents stored external to said
first node," as recited in independent claim 7. We are persuaded the
Examiner erred with respect to claim 7, but not claims 1 and 13.
3
Appeal2015-005301
Application 13/630,353
Appellants' argument regarding claims 1 and 13 turns on the meaning
of "multi-node affinity." App. Br. 5---6. Appellants' Specification defines
"multi-node affinity" of a document as "links to documents stored at other
nodes" external to the document "and/or" there is some demonstration of a
"likelihood of [the document] being accessed" at another node in a computer
network. Spec. i-f 26. We, like the Examiner, Ans. 2, adopt this meaning.
The Specification cites examples consistent with this meaning, including but
not limited to metadata cues, links in the document, geographic references,
and other information. Spec. i-f 26; see also id. i-fi-123-24.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Neeman discloses
determining a "likelihood of the document being accessed at another node,"
i.e., determining multi-node affinity as recited in claims 1 and 13. Ans. 4.
Specifically, Neeman discloses a "mechanism for identifying replicated
objects" and "allowing multiple copies of important objects to be distributed
across the system." Id.; Neeman col. 5, 11. 16-24, col. 6, 11. 1-5. One of
ordinary skill would have understood such replicated objects or copies (i.e.,
documents with the same "data content") at other nodes to reflect a
likelihood of being accessed at other nodes, i.e., multi-node affinity. See In
re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) ("[I]t is proper to take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom."). We, therefore, are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Neeman teaches the disputed limitation in claims 1 and 13.
The disputed limitation of claim 7, however, is narrower than
"determining ... multi-node affinity," as recited in claim 1. Claim 7
requires determining whether a first document "references documents stored
4
Appeal2015-005301
Application 13/630,353
external to" the node storing the first document. App. Br. 14 (emphasis
added). Appellants' Specification defines "references" as including, for
example, "pointers or links that explicitly define or indicate a relationship
between one document and another document," or "metadata" within the
document (e.g., indicating geographic location). Spec. i-fi-123-24. The
Examiner cites the same passages of Neeman for this limitation in claim 7 as
in the rejection of claims 1 and 13, Ans. 4, but in contrast to "multi-node
affinity," we find no disclosure of determining document "references" in
Neeman. See App. Br. 7. Moreover, although Neeman discloses analyzing
the "data content" of documents, as recited in claims 1 and 13, the Examiner
has not identified where Neeman discloses the narrower limitation of
analyzing "references within [the] data content" of the document, as recited
in claim 7, and we find no such disclosure in what the Examiner cites. App.
Br. 13-14.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 13, and their dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 14--16, and 19, which
are not argued separately. We do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 7 and its dependent claims 8-12.
Rejection of Claims 3, 4, 17, 18, and 20
as Unpatentable Over Neeman and Chan
Appellants argue dependent claims 3, 4, 17, 18, and 20 are patentable
for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend, i.e., independent
claims 1 and 13, and that Chan does not cure the deficiencies ofNeeman
alleged above. App. Br. 10-11. Because we have rejected Appellants'
arguments regarding independent claims 1 and 13, see supra, we sustain the
5
Appeal2015-005301
Application 13/630,353
rejection of claims 3, 4, 17, 18, and 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Neeman and Chan.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6 and 13-20,
but reverse the decision rejecting claims 7-12.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6