Ex Parte Sparkes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13034900 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/034,900 02/25/2011 Andrew SPARKES
56436 7590 10/04/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82265399 1728
EXAMINER
F AAL, BABOUCARR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW SPARKES and MICHAEL J. SPITZER 1
Appeal2015-006598
Application 13/034,900
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
T , 1 , • 1nrroaucnon
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, which is
a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company with HPQ Holdings,
LLC, as the general or managing partner, as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006598
Application 13/034,900
Invention
Appellants disclose a write-once-read-many (WORM) storage system
arranged to store datasets with associated WORM attributes that indicate
each dataset's WORM status. Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8, reproduced below with key limitations
emphasized, are exemplary:
1. A method of retention management in a write-once-read-
many (WORM) storage system in which WORM datasets, and
at least certain of their attributes including those relevant to
WORM status, are protected from change or deletion, the
method comprising:
setting a given dataset for retention for a particular
retention period by storing a corresponding retention date in a
first attribute of the given dataset, and setting a WORM
attribute to indicate that the given dataset is a WORM dataset,
wherein at least the first attribute and the WORM attribute are
stored along with the given dataset in a file system;
determining expiry of the retention period for the given
dataset by comparing the stored retention date with a current
time; and
in response to determining the expiry of the retention
period:
removing the stored retention date from the first
attribute, and
changing the WORM attribute to indicate that the
given dataset is no longer a WORM dataset.
3. A method according to claim 2, wherein prior to storing the
retention date in the first attribute, an original value of the first
attribute is stored elsewhere, this original value being
subsequently restored at the time the stored retention date is
removed from the first attribute, wherein the original value is of
the first metadata type.
2
Appeal2014-006598
Application 13/034,900
4. A method according to claim 1, wherein the first attribute is
newly-created upon setting the given dataset for retention for
the particular retention period; the subsequent removal of the
stored retention date following expiry of the retention period
being carried out by the selective deletion of the first attribute
created to store the retention date.
8. A method according to claim 1, wherein the storage system
permits the step of removing the stored retention date and
changing the WORM attribute, to be deferred for a
predetermined deferment period beyond the retention date, the
method further comprising checking for expiry of the deferment
period and on determining its expiry, carrying out the step of
removing the stored retention date and changing the WORM
attribute.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 2006/0085487 Al, published Apr. 20,
2006) and Zimran et al. (US 8, 170,985 B2, issued May 1, 2012). Final Act.
2-6.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hara and
Zimran teaches or suggests: (1) "wherein at least the first attribute and the
WORM attribute are stored along with the given dataset in a file system"
and (2) "changing the WORM attribute to indicate that the given dataset is
no longer a WORM dataset," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hara and
Zimran teaches or suggests:
wherein prior to storing the retention date in the first attribute,
an original value of the first attribute is stored elsewhere, this
original value being subsequently restored at the time the stored
3
Appeal2014-006598
Application 13/034,900
retention date is removed from the first attribute, wherein the
original value is of the first metadata type,
as recited in claim 3?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hara and
Zimran teaches or suggests:
wherein the first attribute is newly-created upon setting the
given dataset for retention for the particular retention period;
the subsequent removal of the stored retention date following
expiry of the retention period being carried out by the selective
deletion of the first attribute created to store the retention date,
as recited in claim 4?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hara and
Zimran teaches or suggests:
wherein the storage system permits the step of removing the
stored retention date and changing the WORM attribute, to be
deferred for a predetermined deferment period beyond the
retention date, the method further comprising checking for
expiry of the deferment period and on determining its expiry,
carrying out the step of removing the stored retention date and
changing the WORM attribute,
as recited in claim 8?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, 14-16, and 18-20
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Hara to teach or suggest a
first attribute and setting a WORM attribute. Final Act. 3 (citing Hara i-f 81,
Figs. 4, 11). However, the Examiner relies on Zimran's setting of stub file's
attributes to teach or suggest wherein at least the first attribute and the
WORM attribute are stored along with the given dataset in a file system.
Final Act. 3 (citing Zimran col. 9, 11. 6-14, 23-32); see also Ans. 4 ("Zimran
is introduced to teach storing a file along with attribute information").
4
Appeal2014-006598
Application 13/034,900
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because Zimran's
teachings relate to "replacing an archived file with a placeholder 'stub file'
that includes attributes of the archived file." App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br.
6-7. Appellants argue, for example, that in Zimran "'File B' is stored in the
'WORM file system' of the 'WORM secondary file server,' while the
placeholder 'File B Stub' (including the 'File B' attributes) is stored
separately in the 'non-FLR file system' of the 'primary file server."' Id. at
12 (citing Zimran Fig. 4).
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner does
not rely on the Zimran stub file relationship to a file stored on a separate
system to teach or suggest the claimed storing of a WORM attribute along
with a given dataset in a file system. Rather, the Examiner relies on
Zimran's setting of attributes of the stub file itself to teach or suggest the
disputed recitation. See Final Act. 3 (citing Zimran col. 9, 11. 6-14, 23-32).
We agree with the Examiner that Zimran teaches or suggests storing stub file
attributes (e.g., atime, read-only, etc.) along with the stub file itself (i.e., a
type of dataset) on the file system. See Ans. 4.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred in combining the
teachings and suggestions of Hara and Zimran because "Hara, without any
modification, already provides the benefit asserted to be provided by the
proposed modification, namely 'protect[ing] a file for [a] specified time
period."' App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 7-8. However, the Examiner
correctly finds that Zimran shows that storing file (or dataset) attributes
pertaining to data protection of a protected file would have been known to an
artisan of ordinary skill. Final Act. 3; Ans. 6. As such, modifying Hara to
store such attributes along with a protected dataset would have represented
5
Appeal2014-006598
Application 13/034,900
the combination of familiar prior art elements according to known methods
to yield predictable results. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill that Hara's attributes, which provide
similar functionality in terms of data protection, could be stored along with
Hara's files. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Hara and Zimran teaches or suggests "wherein at least the first attribute and
the WORM attribute are stored along with the given dataset in a file
system," as recited in claim 1.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Hara's setting a WORM
subject range to "Part (2)" and a retention period to NULL to teach or
suggest changing the WORM attribute to indicate that the given dataset is
no longer a WORM dataset. Final Act. 3 (citing Hara i-fi-192, 93, Fig. 12);
Ans. 3--4 (citing Hara Figs. 4, 9, and i-fi-144--45).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because "setting the
'WORM subject range' to the value 'Part (2)' indicates that 'the portion of a
file' that is subject to WORM is a 'part' (i.e., less than the whole)." App.
Br. 10. Appellants argue that indicating "that the portion of a file is subject
to WORM is a 'part' .... says nothing about 'changing the WORM
attribute to indicate that the given dataset is no longer a WORM dataset."'
Id.; see also Reply Br. 5.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
correctly finds, the use of the "Part (2)" WORM subject range status
indicates that the file (i.e., a dataset) is no longer a WORM dataset on as a
whole-that portions of the file may be modified. Ans. 3 (citing Hara
i-fi-144--45, Fig. 4). Moreover, the individual portions of Hara's files are
6
Appeal2014-006598
Application 13/034,900
themselves datasets. Thus, Hara's "Part (2)" WORM subject range status,
combined with providing gaps in Hara's WORM range control table teaches
or suggests changing a WORM attribute to indicate that a given dataset (the
portions not protected by the WORM range control table) is no longer a
WORM dataset. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Hara and Zimran teaches or suggests "changing the WORM
attribute to indicate that the given dataset is no longer a WORM dataset," as
recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2, 5-7, 9-11, 14--16, and 18-20, which Appellants do
not argue separately. App. Br. 14.
Claims 3 and 12
In rejecting claim 3, the Examiner finds that Hara's object control
table teaches or suggests wherein prior to storing the retention date in the
first attribute, an original value of the first attribute is stored elsewhere, this
original value being subsequently restored at the time the stored retention
date is removed from the first attribute, wherein the original value is of the
first metadata type. Final Act. 4 (citing Hara i-f 81, Fig. 6); see also Ans. 7
(citing, e.g., Hara ,-r 91 ). In particular the Examiner "interprets the limitation
as storing the retention date attribute in a table and querying the data to
determine expiration when data is removed/expires." Final Act. 4.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because "Hara says
nothing whatsoever about prior to storing the retention date in the
'retention period' field, the original value of the 'retention period' field is
stored elsewhere .... [or] about any stored original value of the 'retention
7
Appeal2014-006598
Application 13/034,900
period' field being subsequently restored." App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br.
9.
The Examiner's findings do not show that the cited portions of Hara
relate to storing an attribute elsewhere before storing a retention date in the
attribute, thus preserving the original value, and restoring the original value
when the retention date is removed. Merely storing and looking up a
retention date is insufficient without further teachings and suggestions
related to the preservation and restoration of the data the retention date
overwrote or displaced. The Examiner does not show that Zimran cures this
deficiency in Hara. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's
findings do not show the combination of Hara and Zimran teaches or
suggested the disputed recitation of claim 3.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 3, and claim 12, which contains a similar recitation and is
similarly rejected.
Claims 4 and 13
In rejecting claim 4, the Examiner finds Zimran' s rejection of file
deletion requests by a file level retention (FLR) file system, at least before a
retention period has expired, teaches or suggests wherein the first attribute is
newly-created upon setting the given dataset for retention for the particular
retention period; the subsequent removal of the stored retention date
following expiry of the retention period being carried out by the selective
deletion of the first attribute created to store the retention date. Final Act. 4
(citing Zimran col. 9, 11. 38--42). In particular, the Examiner finds that "[i]n
the case of an expired retention period, the retention period is cancelled and
8
Appeal2014-006598
Application 13/034,900
the file is deleted .... result[ing] in an update of the metadata to the file."
Ans. 8 (citing Hara i-f 91 ).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "the cited portion of
Zimran says nothing whatsoever about an attribute that is newly-created.
Further, the cited portion of Zimran says nothing whatsoever about an
attribute that is deleted." App. Br. 16. Appellants further contend that
because the "claimed first attribute is not the retention date itself, but rather
is an attribute that is newly created to store the retention date .... the
first attribute cannot be disclosed by the asserted 'input retention period' of
Hara. Reply Br. 10-11.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred because the
Examiner's findings merely relate to the deletion of a file, and the attributes
or metadata of the file, in response to a deletion request made after the file's
retention period has expired. However, the claim is not merely directed to
the incidental deletion of a particular file attribute as part of all of the file's
attributes and data after the retention period has expired. Rather, the claim
recites that "expiry of the retention period being carried out by the selective
deletion of the first attribute created to store the retention date" (emphasis
added). That is, the first attribute deletion is targeted (i.e., selective).
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings do not
show that the combination of Hara and Zimran teaches or suggests the
disputed recitation of claim 4.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 4, and claim 13, which contains similar recitations and is
similarly rejected.
9
Appeal2014-006598
Application 13/034,900
Claims 8 and 17
In rejecting claim 8, the Examiner finds Hara's use of an entry in a
WORM range table of retention periods (i.e., the control table), rather than
the NULL value in the WORM retention period field of the object control
table, teaches or suggests wherein the storage system permits the step of
removing the stored retention date and changing the WORM attribute, to be
deferred for a predetermined deferment period beyond the retention date,
the method further comprising checking for expiry of the deferment period
and on determining its expiry, carrying out the step of removing the stored
retention date and changing the WORM attribute. Final Act. 5 (citing Hara
i193); Reply Br. 11-12 (citing Hara i-f 104).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "the cited portion of
Hara says nothing whatsoever about 'the step of removing the stored
retention date and changing the WORM attribute' being deferred, much
less being 'deferred/or a predetermined deferment period beyond the
retention date."' App. Br. 17. Appellants argue that Hara merely
"describes inputting a 'new retention period' by replacing the old retention
period in the 'WORM retention period' field." Reply Br. 11 (citing Hara
i-f l 04).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred because the
updating of an object control table and WORM range control table is merely
the result of a WORM retention period value being invalid. Hara i1i193, 104.
The Examiner's findings relate to the impact of these changes (i.e., the
WORM range control table data is subsequently used to determine whether a
subset of the data is protected). See Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner's
findings do not show the changes themselves-the updating of the object
10
Appeal2014-006598
Application 13/034,900
control table and WORM range control table-are deferred for a
predetermined deferment period beyond the retention date. That is, the
object control table and WORM range control table updates (the step of
removing the stored retention date and changing the WORM attribute) are
performed in response to the WORM retention period value being invalid,
rather than the expiration of a predetermined deferment period beyond the
retention date. The Examiner's findings do not show that Zimran cures this
deficiency in Hara. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's
findings do not show that the combination of Hara and Zimran teaches or
suggests the disputed recitation of claim 8.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 8, and claim 17, which contains a similar recitation and is
similarly rejected.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11,
14--16, and 18-20.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3, 4, 8, 12, 13,
and 17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11