Quantum Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

14244935 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020)

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.
14/244,935 04/04/2014 Rod Wideman QUAP126US 6423
29393 7590 10/01/2020
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
HERSHLEY, MARK E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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):
docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROD WIDEMAN
_____________

Appeal 2019-004193
Application 14/244,935
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5–16, and 18–21. Claims 3, 4, and 17 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
Quantum Corporation. See Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004193
Application 14/244,935

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed invention relates generally to “data classification
aware object storage.” (Spec. Title, emphasis and capitalization omitted).

Representative Independent Claim 1
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
storing computer-executable instructions that when executed by
a computer cause the computer to perform a method, the
method comprising:

accessing data that is to be stored in an object store,
where the object store is configured with two or more data
destinations, where each data destination of the two or more
data destinations has an associated data storage policy of two or
more data storage policies;

classifying the data by identifying a value for a member
of a plurality of attributes of the data, where the plurality of
attributes includes a velocity of the data, and at least one of an
origin of the data, a file type, a file size, a file owner, or an age
of the data;

selecting a data storage policy of the two or more data
storage policies, wherein the selected data storage policy is
associated with a member of the two or more data destinations
based, at least in part, on the value of the member of the
plurality of attributes, and

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed July 10, 2018 (“Final
Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Nov. 12, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s
Answer, mailed Mar. 8, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief, filed May 8,
2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-004193
Application 14/244,935

3
providing the data to a member of the two or more data
destinations that is associated with the selected data storage
policy,
wherein each associated data storage policy of the two or
more data storage policies differs from other data storage
policies of the two or more data storage policies based on at
least one of: a number of copies to be made of data stored in
the data destination associated with that data storage policy,
whether the data stored in the data destination associated with
that data storage policy is to be stored onsite, whether the data
stored in the data destination associated with that data storage
policy is to be stored offsite, whether the data stored in the data
destination associated with that data storage policy is to be
compressed, a type of compression to be performed on the data
stored in the data destination associated with that data storage
policy, whether the data stored in the data destination
associated with that data storage policy is to be encrypted, or a
type of encryption to be performed on the data stored in the
data destination associated with that data storage policy.

Appeal Br. 10–11, “CLAIMS APPENDIX.” (disputed limitations emphasized).
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Yano et al.
Mazzitelli et al.
Akelbein et al.
Wires et al.
Warfield et al.
Kavuri et al.
US 2003/0163457 A1
US 2006/0026552 A1
US 2008/0183642 A1
US 2013/0282994 A1
US 2014/0025770 A1
US 8,832,031 B2
Aug. 28, 2003
Feb. 2, 2006
July 31, 2008
Oct. 24, 2013
Jan. 23, 2014
Sept. 9, 2014

Appeal 2019-004193
Application 14/244,935

4
Rejections
A. Claims 1, 2, 10–16, and 18–20 are rejected as being obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Yano at al. (“Yano”), Kavuri et al. (“Kavuri”), and
Akelbein et al. (“Akelbein”). Final Act. 6.
B. Claim 5 is rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Yano, Kavuri, Akelbein, and Wires et al. (“Wires”). Final Act. 19.
C. Claim 6 is rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Yano, Kavuri, Akelbein, Wires, and Warfield et al. (“Warfield”).
Final Act. 20.
D. Claims 7–9 and 21 are rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Yano, Kavuri, Akelbein, and Mazzitelli et al.
(“Mazzitelli”). Final Act. 21.

ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. In our analysis below, we highlight and address specific findings
and arguments for emphasis.

Rejection A of Independent Claim 1 under § 103
Issues: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we focus our analysis on the
following argued limitations that we find are dispositive regarding
Rejection A of claims 1, 2, 10–16, and 18–20: 3

3 Based upon Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 4–7), we consider
Rejection A of claims 1, 2, 10–16, and 18–20 as a group. See 37 C.F.R.
Appeal 2019-004193
Application 14/244,935

5
Did the Examiner err by finding that the cited references teach or
suggest the disputed limitations:
wherein each associated data storage policy of the two or more
data storage policies differs from other data storage policies of
the two or more data storage policies based on at least one of:
a number of copies to be made of data stored in the data
destination associated with that data storage policy, whether
the data stored in the data destination associated with that data
storage policy is to be stored onsite, whether the
data stored in the data destination associated with that data
storage policy is to be stored offsite, whether the data stored in
the data destination associated with that data storage policy is
to be compressed, a type of compression to be performed on the
data stored in the data destination associated with that data
storage policy, whether the data stored in the data destination
associated with that data storage policy is to be encrypted, or a
type of encryption to be performed on the data stored in the
data destination associated with that data storage policy,

within the meaning of representative claim 1?4 (emphasis added). See Final
Act. 6–10.
Appellant contends that Kavuri “does not explicitly disclose that each
associated data storage policy of the two or more data storage policies
differs from other data storage policies of the two or more data storage

§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Based upon Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 7–8), we
address separately: dependent claim 5 rejected under Rejection B, dependent
claim 6 rejected under Rejection C, and dependent claims 7–9 and 21,
rejected under Rejection D.

4 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2019-004193
Application 14/244,935

6
policies based on at least one of the properties recited in claims 1 or 16.”
Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).
However, based upon our review of Kavuri, we find a preponderance
of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Kavuri’s different
compression and encryption storage policies teach the disputed limitation:
“each associated data storage policy of the two or more data storage
policies differs from other data storage policies of the two or more data
storage policies.” Final Act. 9–10, Ans. 6 (emphasis added).
Turning to the evidence, Kavuri expressly discloses:
In some examples, the system performs storage operations
based on storage policies. A storage policy may be, for
example, a data structure that includes a set of preferences or
other criteria considered during storage operations. The storage
policy may determine or define a storage location, a relationship
between components, network pathways, accessible datapipes,
retention schemes, compression or encryption requirements,
preferred components, preferred storage devices or media, and
so on. Storage policies may be stored in storage manager 310,
221, 231, or may be stored in global manager 261 as discussed
above.
Kavuri, col. 4, ll. 37–47 (emphasis added).
As an initial matter of claim construction, we conclude the disputed
“wherein” clause of claim 1 recites a list of differences between data storage
policies in which at least one data policy must differ from at least a second
data storage policy “based on at least one of” a list of claimed differences.
We emphasize that, because “applicants may amend claims to narrow
their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to
the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d
1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2019-004193
Application 14/244,935

7
Given the evidence cited by the Examiner (Kavuri, col. 4, ll. 37–47),
we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kavuri’s storage policies
including “compression or encryption requirements” teach, or at least
suggest, the disputed “wherein” clause limitations. See Ans. 6–7 (citing
Kavuri, col. 4, ll. 37–47).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, because we conclude
the scope of the claim 1 language (“whether the data stored in the data
destination associated with that data storage policy is to be compressed . . .
[and] whether the data stored in the data destination associated with that data
storage policy is to be encrypted”) broadly encompasses Kavuri’s storage
policies, which are expressly described as including compression or
encryption requirements. Kavuri, col. 4, ll. 37–47 (emphasis added).
On this record, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we
are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's underlying factual
findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding Rejection A
of independent representative claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s Rejection A of representative
independent claim 1, and also Rejection A of independent claims 16 and 21,
which recite similar limitations of commensurate scope. The remaining
grouped dependent claims also rejected under Rejection A (and not argued
separately) fall with representative independent claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's obviousness Rejection A of claims 1, 2, 10–16
and 18–20.

Appeal 2019-004193
Application 14/244,935

8
Rejection B of Claim 5, Rejection C of Claim 6,
and Rejection D of Claims 7–9 and 21

Appellant does not present substantive, separate arguments regarding
Rejections B, C, and D of dependent claims 5–9 and 21. For each of
Rejections B, C, and D, Appellant merely argues that the additionally cited
secondary reference (or references) “does not overcome the deficiencies of
the other cited art.” Appeal Br. 7–8. However, we see no deficiencies with
the base combination of Yano, Kavuri, and Akelbein, for the same reasons
discussed above regarding Rejection A of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s Rejections B, C, and D of dependent claims 5–9 and 21.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred with respect to
obviousness Rejections A, B, C, and D of claims 1, 2, 5–16, and 18–21, over
the cited prior art of record, and we sustain the rejections.

Appeal 2019-004193
Application 14/244,935

9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2,
10–16,
18–20
103 Yano, Kavuri,
Akelbein
1, 2,
10–16,
18–20

5 103 Yano, Kavuri,
Akelbein, Wires
5
6 103 Yano, Kavuri,
Akelbein, Wires,
Warfield
6
7–9, 21 103 Yano, Kavuri,
Akelbein, Mazzitelli
7–9, 21
Overall
outcome
1, 2, 5–16,
18–21

FINALITY AND RESPONSE
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED