Ex Parte YellapragadaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201613402197 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/402,197 02/22/2012 SUBRAHMANYA S. YEEEAPRAGADA 072962-0404227 4281 105727 7590 01/04/2017 Pillsihnrv Winthrnn Shaw Pittman T T P (CK Tno ^ EXAMINER PO Box 10500 McLean, VA 22102 BOOK, PHYLLIS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): Docket_IP@pillsburylaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUBRAHMANYA S. YELLAPRAGADA Appeal 2016-002950 Application 13/402,197 Technology Center 2400 Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and STEVEN A. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-002950 Application 13/402,197 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11—16, and 18—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to managing virtual hard disks in cloud environments. Abstract. Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method to manage a virtual hard disk executing in a cloud computing/storage environment, the method comprising: storing, using a virtual hard disk (VHD) management system, a plurality of cloud object identifiers associated with a plurality of cloud objects in a first cloud allocation table, the plurality of cloud objects associated to a plurality of data blocks of the virtual hard disk; forming, using the VHD management system, a new cloud allocation table if a data block of the plurality of data blocks is changed, the new cloud allocation table comprising a new cloud object identifier corresponding to a cloud object associated to the changed data block; and merging, at the VHD management system, the first cloud allocation table and the new cloud allocation table to form an updated cloud allocation table. 15. A system to manage a virtual hard disk executing in a cloud computing/storage environment, the system comprising: a hardware processor configured to execute computer- readable instructions; and computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, configured to: 2 Appeal 2016-002950 Application 13/402,197 store a plurality of cloud object identifiers associated with a plurality of cloud objects in a first cloud allocation table, the plurality of cloud objects associated to a plurality of data blocks of the virtual hard disk; form a new cloud allocation table if a data block of the plurality of data blocks is changed, the new cloud allocation table comprising a new cloud object identifier corresponding to a cloud object associated to the changed data block; and merge the first cloud allocation table and the new cloud allocation table to form an updated cloud allocation table. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Antosz US 2009/0249284 A1 Oct. 1,2009 Prahlad US 2010/0070725 A1 Mar. 18,2010 Prahlad US 2010/0333116 A1 Dec. 30, 2010 Khanzode US 2011/0106768 A1 May 5, 2011 Tremaine US 2011/0161597 A1 Jun. 30, 2011 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 15, 16, 18—21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112 second paragraph as being indefinite. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7—9, 12, 14—16, 19, and 21—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Prahlad’l 16 in view of Khanzode and further in view of Tremaine. Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prahlad’ 116 in view of Khanzode and further in view of Tremaine and further in view of Antosz. 3 Appeal 2016-002950 Application 13/402,197 Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prahlad’ 116 in view of Khanzode and further in view of Tremaine and further in view of Prahlad’725. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Action and Answer, except for the findings regarding 35 U.S.C § 112, second paragraph. We add the following for emphasis. Claims 15, 16, 18—21, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112 second paragraph The Examiner rejected claims 15, 16, 18—21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C § 112 second paragraph, because system claim 15 only recites a “hardware processor” and therefore fails to recite structures that would clearly define the claimed system (Final Action 3). In the Answer, the Examiner changes the reason for the rejection to be the failure to include the managed virtual hard disk recited in the preamble as part of the system executing the computer-readable instructions, and the two separate system elements (i.e., hardware processor and computer-readable instructions) not being separate since the instructions are inside the processor (Ans. 13). We agree with Appellant that the claim is definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. We find one skilled in the art, after reading the disclosure, would understand the claim terms as being broad, but not indefinite. “Breadth of a claim is not to be equated with indefmiteness.” MPEP § 2173.04, citing In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971). In In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714—15 (Fed. Cir. 1983), our reviewing court held that single means claims are subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 4 Appeal 2016-002950 Application 13/402,197 § 112,11 for insufficient disclosure because the claim “covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated result, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor.” However, here Appellant is not claiming a single means claim but broadly claims a hardware processor and computer-readable instructions. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 16, 18—21, and 24 under 35U.S.C§ 112 second paragraph. Claims 1, 2, 5—9, 12—16, and 19—24 rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 Appellant argues that the Examiner’s cited portions of Prahlad and Khanzode fail to disclose or suggest storing cloud object identifiers associated with cloud objects in a first cloud allocation table, the cloud objects associated to data blocks of the virtual hard disk executing in the cloud computing/storage environment, as claimed (App. Br. 7—8). In particular, Appellant argues that the cited portions do not disclose executing the VHD in a cloud computing environment (App. Br. 8). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Language in a claim preamble acts as a claim limitation only when it gives meaning to a claim and properly defines the invention and not merely when it states a purpose or intended use of the invention. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 70 (CCPA 1976), and Kropa v. 5 Appeal 2016-002950 Application 13/402,197 Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951). “Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is ‘determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.’” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held generally that “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. BartellIndus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Particularly, the Court has held that the preamble has no separate limiting effect if, for example, “the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434—35 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In the instant case, the term “executing” appears in the preamble of claim 1, but is not positively recited in the body of the claim, and thus, merely recites the intended use of a structure. As such, there is no limitation requiring the data blocks of the virtual hard disk be executed in the cloud computing/storage environment (see claim 1). Appellant further argues with respect to Tremaine that a mere description of virtual address translation tables using which virtual addresses are mapped to certain different memory regions does not disclose or suggest, and in fact has no apparent bearing on, merging the recited first cloud allocation table and the new cloud allocation table to form an updated cloud allocation table (App. Br. 9). Indeed, there is no reference to the terms “merge,” “allocation table,” or “virtual hard disk” in relation to cloud computing/storage environment (App. Br. 9). We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Tremaine teaches a virtual memory management system, which uses page tables to map virtual addresses to real addresses in 6 Appeal 2016-002950 Application 13/402,197 memory (Tremaine, | 57; Final Act. 6). Tremaine teaches an example in which frequently-used portions of the operating system would have tables with virtual addresses mapped to the direct memory region, while a database with random addressing may have tables with virtual addresses mapped to main memory (Tremaine, | 58; Final Act. 6). Tremaine teaches that the database program may inform the operating system to store information in the virtual address translation tables such that the real addresses are mapped to the direct memory region, rather than at the main memory locations (Tremaine, 1 58; Final Act. 6). We thus, agree with the Examiner’s finding that because information from one table is merged with information in another table, the process is equivalent to the “merging ” recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 6—7). We further note that that there is no ipsissimis verbis test for determining whether a reference discloses a claim element, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the fact that the term “merging” does not appear in Tremaine does not mean that such term is not taught. Furthermore, the Examiner additionally finds, and we agree, that Khanzode specifically teaches a process of creating multiple backups of Virtual Hard Drives (VHDs) using differential VHDs indicating changes to the files, which can be processed in either a forward or backward direction (Khanzode, Tflf 39-45, Fig. 4; Ans. 19). Khanzode specifically discloses that one or more old differential VHDs that have not recently been used for recovery may be merged into a self-contained backup VHD (Khanzode, 145; Ans. 19). We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that file allocation tables are commonly used in file systems, and Prahlad relies on the use of tables for data storage (Prahlad, 1 50; Ans. 19). 7 Appeal 2016-002950 Application 13/402,197 Appellant further argues that the Examiner provided no evidence of record to establish that the alleged modification of the teachings of the cited portions of Prahlad based on the cited portions of Khanzode would be “predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art,” or what “design incentives or other market forces” would prompt such a modification in the first place (App. Br. 11). Appellant argues that it is not apparent in what way Prahlad’s data deduplication technique relating to checking if a copy of a data object has already been stored on a cloud storage site is applicable to Khanzode’s transmission of different VHDs (i.e., backup VHD or metadata VHD) to a remote storage location at various operational stages (App. Br. 11). We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner that Prahlad teaches deduplication to monitor the file system, track changes to data blocks, remove duplicate blocks to save resources, and store data in the cloud environment to facilitate searching (see Prahlad, H 51, 295—291', Ans. 23). The Examiner relies on Khanzode for the teaching of a VHD that would be beneficial to Prahlad for implementations relating to virtual machines (Prahlad, H 51, 110; Ans. 23; Final Act. 4). The Examiner relies on Tremaine for the teaching of table manipulations, such as merging, which as stated previously, is useful for many areas of computing technology (Ans. 23). In addition, the Examiner relies on Khanzode for the teaching of merging differential VHDs, as was discussed supra (Ans. 23). We further agree with the Examiner’s articulated motivation (Final Act. 5). The Examiner concludes, and we agree, that Prahlad pertains to storing data in a cloud environment (see Prahlad, H 51, 110; Ans. 17; Final Act. 4) and Khanzode teaches saving data in a VHD at a remote storage location including a cloud storage location (see Khanzode 12; Ans. 17). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the 8 Appeal 2016-002950 Application 13/402,197 invention to include the virtual hard drives (VHDs) taught by Khanzode in Prahlad because such a variation would have been predictable result (Ans. 23). This is consistent with the rationale that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (Final Act. 4 (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007))). Khanzode is relied upon for the teaching of a VHD, which would be beneficial to the Prahlad invention for implementations related to virtual machines (Prahlad, para. 110; Ans. 23). We note that an artisan is presumed to possess both skill and common sense. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). In other words, one skilled in the art at the time of the invention would have used VHDs in a cloud environment as an alternative storage for saving data. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19. Claims 2, 9, and 16 Appellants argue that the Examiner’s cited portions of Prahlad discuss transferring data as backup copies in secondary storage (para. 297), but assert that there is no apparent discussion regarding the alleged features of freeing up of space of new data, or how those features relate to the claimed determining and deleting aspects (App. Br. 13—16). We do not agree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, with respect to the “deleting” operation, Prahlad teaches that as data blocks are changed, the allocation table is overwritten, and since the areas where data blocks are no longer used is available for use, the objects previously in those areas are essentially deleted (Ans. 28; Prahlad, para. 298). 9 Appeal 2016-002950 Application 13/402,197 Furthermore, as we indicated supra, Prahlad teaches deduplication to monitor the file system, track changes to data blocks, remove duplicate blocks to save resources, and store data in the cloud environment to facilitate searching (see Prahlad, H 51, 295—297; Ans. 23). We note Prahlad teaches updating an allocation table, such as a file allocation table for the file system associated with the cloud gateway to indicate the data blocks that no longer contain data and are now free to receive and store data from the file system (para. 296), thereby teaching deleting to free storage and allowing receipt of new data. Thus, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 9 and 16. Claims 7, 14, and 21 Appellants argue that a mere description of a snapshot of data that includes pointers mapping files and directories to specific disk blocks in no way teaches or indicates relative sizes of the recited cloud allocation tables with respect to the data blocks or their relative downloading times, as Claimed (App. Br. 16). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the claim merely recites what a person skilled in the art understands and which is inherent—smaller blocks take less time to download than larger blocks (Ans. 29-30). Therefore, we agree that the teaching of Prahlad that pointers to data blocks take less time to download than the data blocks themselves, because they are smaller (para. 8), is a relevant teaching (Ans. 29-30). Claims 22—24 Appellants argue that the Examiner did not address the limitations of claims 22—24 (App. Br. 16—17). 10 Appeal 2016-002950 Application 13/402,197 We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Prahlad teaches that when data blocks are changed, the data structure includes information such as the identification of the changed blocks, the time of the change and pointers, such as maps of file names to blocks and sub-objects (Ans. 30; para. 295). Claims 4, 11, and 18 Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection does not address claims 4, 11, and 18 (App. Br. 17—18). We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Antosz teaches a system using virtual hard disks in which configuration items are set with Boolean logic (para. 159), thereby meeting the claim limitation of “cloud object identifiers are Boolean indicators” (Ans. 31). Claims 6, 13, and 20 Appellants argue that Prahlad, Khanzode and Tremaine do not disclose or teach claims 1, 8, and 15, from which claims 6, 13 and 20 depend (App. Br. 18-19). We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner that Prahlad and Khanzode teach the use of VHDs in a cloud-computing environment and Tremaine teaches specific kinds of table manipulations (Ans. 32—33; Final Act. 4—7; also see supra). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11-16, and 18-24. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11—16, and 18—24 is affirmed. 11 Appeal 2016-002950 Application 13/402,197 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 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation