VMware, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2021

2020001120 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2021)

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.
15/068,988 03/14/2016 Edward J. Goggin C797 7077
152593 7590 07/01/2021
FOUNTAINHEAD/VMWARE-NICIRA
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
EXAMINER
MAHMOOD, REZWANUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2021 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@fountainheadlaw.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
klhussain@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD J. GOGGIN, SANDEEP RANGASWAMY,
KIRAN JOSHI, SRINATH PREMACHANDRAN,
GOPALA SURYANARAYANA, RADU BERINDE,
WENGUANG WANG, JORGE GUERRA DELGADO,
JIN ZHANG, and RADHIKA VULLIKANTI
Appeal 2020-001120
Application 15/068,988
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 8. We have
jurisdiction 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). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
VMWare, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001120
Application 15/068,988

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to the use of a file-granular data deduplication
effectiveness metric for data deduplication. Spec., Title. The effectiveness
metric may be a uniqueness metric that indicates a degree of deduplication
of respective data files in a storage volume of a multi-volume environment.
Spec., Abstract. The uniqueness metric is used to identify data files in the
storage volume that are suitable for moving to other storage volumes in
rebalancing operations. Id. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method in a distributed storage system comprising a
plurality of storage volumes, the method comprising:
storing a plurality of data files among the storage volumes
that comprise the distributed storage system including, for each
storage volume, deduplicating data that comprise data files
stored in that storage volume;
computing uniqueness metrics for respective data files in
their respective storage volume, the uniqueness metrics being
indicative of a degree of deduplication of the respective data files
in their respective storage volume;
using the uniqueness metrics of data files in a first storage
volume to identify one or more first data files in the first storage
volume; and
moving the one or more first data files from the first
storage volume to a second storage volume to load balance the
data files among the storage volumes that comprise the
distributed storage system.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2020-001120
Application 15/068,988

3
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Botelho US 9,026,752 B1 May 5, 2015
Chambliss US 2014/0365449 A1 Dec. 11, 2014
Jain US 2016/0127307 A1 May 5, 2016
REJECTION
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Botelho, Chambliss and Jain. Final Act. 9.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding that Chambliss
teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious the limitation of “computing
uniqueness metrics for respective data files in their respective storage
volume, the uniqueness metrics being indicative of a degree of deduplication
of the respective data files in their respective storage volume,” as recited in
claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Chambliss teaches,
suggests, or otherwise renders obvious the limitation “using the uniqueness
metrics of data files in a first storage volume to identify one or more first
data files in the first storage volume,” as recited in claim 1?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Botelho,
Chambliss and Jain to achieve the invention recited in claim 1?

2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only.
Appeal 2020-001120
Application 15/068,988

4
ANALYSIS
First Issue
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combination of
Botelho, Chambliss, and Jain. Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds that
Botelho generally teaches a distributed storage environment having a
plurality of volumes with a deduplication capability (the “storing” limitation
of claim 1). Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner relies on Chambliss as teaching
the computation and use of uniqueness metrics to identify files in the storage
volume (the “computing” and “using” limitations of claim 1). Final Act.
10–11 (citing Chambliss ¶¶ 3, 5, 9, 23). The Examiner turns to Jain as
teaching rebalancing of files between storage volumes (the “moving”
limitation of claim 1). Final Act. 12.
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that Chambliss teaches
the “computing” limitation of claim 1, asserting that “[t]he Office action
cites ¶¶[0005, 0009, and 0023] in Chambliss . . . but otherwise fail[s] to
offer any analysis of how the cited paragraphs disclose the limitation.”
Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant argues paragraph 5 of
Chambliss is deficient because it merely describes a hash function that is
computed only on smaller data blocks, but not on any data file. Appeal Br.
9–10. Appellant further argues that although paragraph 9 of Chambliss
describes determining deduplication affinities and associated metrics, “there
is no description in ¶[0009] of what those metrics are” and that “the
deduplication affinities are metrics for groups of chunks, not for respective
data files.”” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further contends Chambliss’ ¶ 23
lacks the necessary teaching as well. Appellant argues that “[a]lthough
Chambliss describes ‘metric values . . . that characterize the writes relative
Appeal 2020-001120
Application 15/068,988

5
to uniqueness and duplication longevity,” the uniqueness in Chambliss is not
“indicative of a degree of duplication of a respective data file in a storage
volume.” Appeal Br. 11.
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner cites the combined
teachings of Chambliss ¶¶ 5, 9, and 23 as teaching the “computing”
limitation. Appellant argues that Chambliss teaches deduplication of data
blocks but not files. We disagree, Chambliss teaches that “[d]eduplication
applies to the redundancy of data to be written to storage, and the
redundancy ratios for data, such as backup files and email.” Chambliss ¶ 3.
Chambliss further notes that a continuous write “can be a familiar unit of
data such as a file.” Chambliss ¶ 5. Chambliss further explains that chucks
“usually range in size from 4 KB to 512 KB.” Id. Thus, while in certain
cases, a file may include multiple data chunks, for smaller files (less than
512 KB, a person of skill in the art would understand the file to be made up
of a single data chunk. As such, even if Appellant is correct that Chambliss’
deduplication operations are performed on chunks of data, in some cases,
those chunks of data are the files themselves.
Chambliss further teaches that the “computing device records metrics
associated with the deduplication of the chunks of data from the plurality of
writes” (Chambliss ¶ 9) and that the “metric values are determined that
characterize the writes relative to uniqueness and duplication longevity.”
Chambliss ¶23. Although Appellant argues that Chambliss does not define
“uniqueness,” we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand uniqueness to be indicative of how much deduplication has been
performed on a particular file. For example, in cases where a file is
completely unique, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
Appeal 2020-001120
Application 15/068,988

6
that no deduplication would be performed on the file. As such, we agree
with the Examiner that the Chambliss teaches “computing uniqueness
metrics for respective data files in their respective storage volume, the
uniqueness metrics being indicative of a degree of deduplication of the
respective data files in their respective storage volume.”
Second Issue
Claim 1 recites “using the uniqueness metrics of data files in a first
storage volume to identify one or more first data files in the first storage
volume.” Appellant argues that Chambliss doesn’t “offer any analysis of
how the cited paragraph disclose (sic) the limitation.” Appeal Br. 12. We
disagree, as the Examiner finds that Chambliss ¶ 9 teaches that the
“computing device generates groups based on the metrics.” Chambliss ¶ 9.
We agree with the Examiner this description in Chambliss teaches or
suggests the argued limitation. Consequently, we are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s argument that Chambliss fails to teach or suggest the argued
limitation.
Third Issue
Appellant also challenges the proposed combination of references.
The Examiner finds the “motivation to combine Botelho, Chambliss, and
Jain would be to reduce the amount of data storage required by using an
integrated data management and storage system (Jain: Paragraph 24).” Final
Act. 12.
Appellant argues:
The pending claims would not be predictable from a combination
of the prior art references. For example, there is no reasonable
expectation of obtaining the operation of ‘computing uniqueness
metrics for respective data files in their respective storage
Appeal 2020-001120
Application 15/068,988

7
volume, the uniqueness metrics being indicative of a degree of
deduplication’ because Chambliss computes metrics, which as
explained above, are not uniqueness metrics indicative of a
degree of deduplication. There is no reasonable expectation of
obtaining the operation of ‘using the uniqueness metrics of data
files in a first storage volume to identify one or more first data
files’ because Chambliss uses their metrics to define groups and
then to associated chunks with those groups (¶[0009]).
Appeal Br. 13.
We are not persuaded of error. The test for obviousness requires the
Examiner to set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Kahn, 441
F.3d at 988 (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). The reasoning
provided by the Examiner here is sufficient to meet this flexible standard.
Although Appellant argues the proposed combination would not be
predictable or reasonable, Appellant’s argument does not address the
rationale provided by the Examiner, which we find to be reasonable and
grounded in the evidence of record. Because Appellant’s argument does not
explain why the Examiner’s proffered reasoning is deficient, we are not
persuaded the combination is in error.
Remaining Claims
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any
other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these
claims for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims from
which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.

Appeal 2020-001120
Application 15/068,988

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103(a) Botelho,
Chambliss, Jain
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED