Ex Parte SHANKAR et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 201814132976 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/132,976 12/18/2013 23117 7590 08/29/2018 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Satish SHANKAR 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. 5135-116 4694 EXAMINER GEBRESENBET, DINKU W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2018 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SATISH SHANKAR and SANJU KRISHNAN RETNAKUMARI 1 Appeal2018-001046 Application 14/132,976 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVINE. BRANCH, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Software AG. See App. Br. 3. Appeal 2018-001046 Application 14/132,976 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-7, 9-23, 25, and 26. Claims 8 and 24 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 2 THE INVENTION According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a "File Metadata Handler that helps an integrated managed file transfer solution perform processing in connection with complex distributed file systems." Spec. Abstract; App. Br. 5. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for enabling the accessing and/or processing of data stored in one or more computer systems in connection with a file metadata handler that has built-in support for a plurality of different file formats, the method comprising: receiving a request to create a file metadata definition for the file metadata handler, the file metadata definition being configurable for a first file format, and wherein files in the first file format have associated metadata for which processing logic is required to be defined in order to process such files; linking the received file metadata definition with an identifier that identifies files of the first file format; receiving format information that includes information about elements that are available to files having the first file format; updating the file metadata definition with at least one of received transaction boundary information including at least start and end elements for transaction boundaries, data 2 We refer to the Specification filed Dec. 18, 2013 ("Spec."); the Final Office Action, mailed Oct. 4, 2016 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief, filed June 5, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed Sept. 14, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief, filed Nov. 9, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal 2018-001046 Application 14/132,976 validation information, data transformation requirements, including one or more conditions related to the elements, to be linked to the elements, or linkages between encrypted protocols and decryption tools for the first file format; and storing the updated file metadata definition in a non- transitory computer readable storage medium, in enabling the file metadata handler to access and/ or process data in the first file format. REFERENCES The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Lee et al. ("Lee") Wan Aizman et al. ("Aizman") Gower US 2003/0185395 Al US 2005/0015377 Al US 2013/0041872 Al US 2013/0117238 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Oct. 2, 2003 Jan.20,2005 Feb. 14,2013 May 9, 2013 Claims 1-7, 9-23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Aizman, and Wan. Final Act. 3-14. Claims 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Aizman, Wan, and Gower. Final Act. 14--15. ANALYSIS We agree with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in connection with the rejection of dependent claims 11 and 18. However, with respect to claims 1, 22, and 23, Appellants contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error and, in connection therewith, we adopt as our own 3 Appeal 2018-001046 Application 14/132,976 ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3---6 and 13-14) and (2) the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-9) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Claim 1 The Examiner finds the disputed step of updating is taught by the combination of Lee, Wan, and Aizman. Ans. 4---6. The Examiner applies Lee's "metadata allow[ing] an engine to support the storage of data outside [a] file system", data validation information (e.g., to determine certificate validity), data transformation requirements, and linkages between encrypted protocols and decryption tools for teaching updating file metadata definition with received transaction boundary information. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Wan's begin and end tags which identify data positioned between the tags as delineating dependency information associated with an object for teaching the start and end elements of the disputed limitation. Final Act. 5 (citing Wan ,r,r 36-37, 48). In response to Appellants' argument that Lee is deficient, the Examiner further relies on Wan' s dependency analysis of object metadata resulting in a change to the object's database schema for teaching the updating of metadata. Ans. 5 ( citing Wan ,r,r 34, 35). The Examiner explains Wan's "begin and end tags delineate the dependency information that is associated with the object ... [the] tags are used to describe which objects depend ... on other objects" thereby teaching the disputed start and end elements for transaction boundaries of claim 1. Ans. 5---6. Appellants contend "Wan does not ... disclose or suggest updating a 4 Appeal 2018-001046 Application 14/132,976 metadata file definition with information that includes start and end elements for transaction boundaries." App. Br. 16-17. Appellants argue, because Wan is directed to solving a problem in connection with objects in a data warehouse system rather than to handling large files for a (Hadoop )3 distributed file system (HDFS), "Wan's tags are not at all analogous to updating a metadata file definition with information that includes start and end elements for transaction boundaries." App. Br. 17. According to Appellants "[a]t best, [Wan's] start and end tags help delineate the dependency between objects, but do not at all represent start and end elements for transaction boundaries" App. Br. 18. Appellants further argue "Lee discloses a system for authenticating a computing device and using metadata to support storage of data outside of the system [but] does not ... describe updating ( or accessing) the metadata file definition with various information, including transaction boundary information." Id. at 1 7. Addressing Aizman, Appellants argue "Aizman's segment descriptors that specify sections of non-zero data do not reasonably correspond to transaction boundary information, let alone updating a file metadata definition with the transaction boundary information." Reply Br. 4. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5) in finding Wan's dependency analysis which updates object metadata to reflect changes made to the object definition teaches or suggests the disputed updating of a file metadata definition (Wan,, 34--35). Furthermore, Wan' s dependency information is represented in a hierarchical 3 Although Appellants allege Wan is not directed to problems related to distributed file systems, presumably in general, their parenthetical reference to the abbreviation "HDFS" (App. Br. 17) is more particularly indicative of a Hadoop distributed file system. 5 Appeal 2018-001046 Application 14/132,976 format including begin and end tags identifying the dependency information. One skilled in the art would have understood that updating the dependency information to add or delete information would further require adjusting the begin and end tags as appropriate to contain the updated information. In connection with the transaction boundaries requirement, Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us that transaction boundaries are distinguishable over Wan's tags. Appellants' Specification does not provide a definition for transaction boundaries, only describing that a "user interface may be used to help an end user define the file envelope for supported file formats [ and] specify data elements that indicate the start and end of transactions." Spec. ,r 39. Thus, a file envelope with start and end tags or elements describes a boundary for a transaction. Similarly, claim 1 recites a transaction boundary including at least start and end elements for transaction boundaries. Therefore, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, Wan's begin and end tags teach or suggest the disputed transaction boundary information. Furthermore, we disagree with Appellants' argument that Aizman' s segment descriptors do not reasonably correspond to transaction boundary information. Aizman discloses "[ e Jach segment descriptor 310 encodes: ... the logical offset within the object [and] the length of the uncompressed data of the payload for this segment." Aizman ,r 131. One skilled in the art would have understood the length of the data to teach or suggest boundary information of the data and, therefore, in combination with Lee and Wan, transaction boundary information. For the reasons discussed above, Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of error in connection with independent claim 1 and, similarly, 6 Appeal 2018-001046 Application 14/132,976 unpersuasive in connection with independent claims 15, 16, 20, and 21 which are agued on the basis of claim 1 (App. Br. 15). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of those independent claims together with the rejection of dependent claims 2-10, 14, 17, and 25 which are not argued separately with particularity. Claim 11 Appellants contend Aizman fails to teach or suggest deploying a plugin to a map reduce framework associated with the distributed file system, the map reduce framework being used in accessing and/ or manipulating files stored in the associated distributed file system as required by dependent claims 11 and 18. In response, the Examiner finds "the combination of Lee, Aizman, and Wan describes the use of a map reduce framework to access/manipulate files in distributed database management systems deploying application to the map-reduce framework." Ans. 9. We find Appellants' contention persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner cites to paragraph 31 of Aizman for disclosing the limitations of dependent claim 11 including the required plug-in. Final Act. 7. However, we are unable to identify any disclosure of a plug-in. As such, the Examiner fails to identify with particularity any component element of Aizman corresponding to a plug-in, and we decline to speculate what component element teaches or suggests the disputed plug-in. We note, in an ex parte appeal, the Board "is basically a board of review-we review ... rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001). "The review authorized by 35 U.S.C. Section 134 is not a process whereby the examiner ... invite[s] the [B]oard to examine the application and resolve patentability in the first 7 Appeal 2018-001046 Application 14/132,976 instance." ExparteBraeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999). Because we are a board of review, and not a place of initial examination, we will not engage in the de nova examination that would be required to supplement the Examiner's findings in connection with the disputed plug-in of claims 11 and 18. Therefore, we are constrained not to sustain the rejection of dependent claims 11 and 18 together with the rejection of dependent claims 12, 13, and 19 depending therefrom. Claim 22 Claim 22 recites the data processing system of independent claims 21, "further comprising a map reduce framework used in accessing data stored on the at least one distributed file system." Appellants contend "[ w ]hile Lee describes mapping certain metadata, Lee does not describe using a map reduce framework." App. Br. 20. The Examiner responds, finding Aizman's disclosure that "cloud storage systems have been focused on support for very large files, [ meeting] the needs of the initial map/reduce applications that inspired their development" teaches or suggests using a map reduce framework to access or manipulate very large data files. Ans. 6-7 ( citing Aizman ,r 31) ( emphasis omitted). Appellants reply, arguing that, although Aizman describes cloud storage systems meeting the needs of map/reduce applications, such does not describe a map reduce framework as required by claim 22. Reply Br. 6. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Appellants disclose "map reduce frameworks provide programming models for processing large data sets with a parallel, distributed algorithm on a cluster," with Hadoop as an example of a map reduce framework. Spec. ,r 10. Similarly, Aizman discloses, as an example of a cloud storage system, a "Hadoop Distributed 8 Appeal 2018-001046 Application 14/132,976 File System (HDFS)." Aizman ,r,r 7, 18; see also Ans. 7-8. Thus, we agree with the Examiner in finding Aizman's HDFS teaches or suggest the disputed map reduced framework. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 22. Claim 23 Claim 23 recites "[ t ]he system of claim 22, wherein the file metadata handler is remote from the map reduce framework." Appellants contend "Lee only describes mapping metadata and provides no disclosure of a map reduce framework, let alone one that is remote from a file metadata handler (or vice-versa)." App. Br. 21. The Examiner finds Aizman discloses a Cloud Storage Access Module (CSAM) requests the identity of chunks to be created and a metadata server replies with the requested chunk identifiers. Ans. 9 ( citing Aizman ,r 48). Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. As discussed above in connection with claim 22, contrary to Appellants' argument, we find Aizman teaches or suggests the disputed map reduce framework. Furthermore, Appellants provide insufficient evidence or reasoning supporting a meaning of remote that would require a particular special relationship between a file metadata handler (i.e., Aizman's metadata server) and the map reduce framework (i.e., Aizman's CSAM). Therefore, Aizman's disclosure of metadata server transmitting information to a CSAM indicates the elements are separate and, therefore, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, teaches or suggests one is remote from the other as required by the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 23. 9 Appeal 2018-001046 Application 14/132,976 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-13, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7, 9, 10, 14--17, 20-23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation