Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2018

14929226 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/929,226 10/30/2015
119915 7590
LeClairRyan (NetApp)
70 Linden Oaks, Suite 210
Rochester, NY 14625
09/28/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Maxim Gerard Smith
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.
43872.3300
(POl-010415.01
CONFIRMATION NO.
8111
EXAMINER
AHMED, ZUBAIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2132
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2018 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):
USPTOinboxroc@leclairryan.com
kelly.badum@leclairryan.com
phoebe.jones@leclairryan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAXIM GERARD SMITH, JOHN WILLIAM HASKINS JR.,
DAVID ANTHONY SLIK, and KEITH ARNOLD SMITH
Appeal 2018-002536
Application 14/929,226 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, JASON J. CHUNG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the Applicant, NetApp, Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002536
Application 14/929,226
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to a durable file system designed for
storage devices that do not support write in place and are susceptible to
errors or failures. Spec. ,r 17. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject
matter and reads as follows:
1. A method of storage space reclamation comprising:
selecting a first set of zones from a plurality of sets of
zones, wherein selecting the first set of zones is based, at least
in part, on the first set of zones being indicated as not currently
available for writing, wherein the first set of zones corresponds
to a plurality of storage devices;
locating file system index updates within a first zone of
the first set of zones;
determining a set of one or more of the file system index
updates in the first zone that occurred after a snapshot of the file
system index was taken;
copying, from the first set of zones to a second set of
zones, indexing information and associated object fragments
corresponding to the set of one or more file system index
updates that occurred after the snapshot of the file system index
was taken; and
indicating the first set of zones as available for writing.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kushwah et al. (US 8,990,162 B 1; Mar. 24, 2015) and
Anderson et al. (US 2008/0151724 Al; June 26, 2008). Final Act. 6-9.
2
Appeal2018-002536
Application 14/929,226
Claims 2, 3, 8, 13, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Kushwah, Anderson, and Bushman (US
9,361,301 Bl; June 7, 2016). Final Act. 9-12.
Claims 4, 5, 9-11, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kushwah, Anderson, and Hubin et al.
(US 8,838,911 Bl; Sept. 16, 2014). Final Act. 13-17.
Claims 6, 7, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kushwah, Anderson, and Lecrone et al. (US 8,959,305
Bl; Feb. 17, 2015). Final Act. 17-18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the combination of
Kushwah and Anderson does not teach or suggest "selecting the first set of
zones ... based, at least in part, on the first set of zones being indicated as
not currently available for writing" and "copying, from the first set of zones
to a second set of zones, indexing information and associated object
fragments," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 1-7. In
particular, Appellants argue that Anderson teaches logically moving data by
3
Appeal2018-002536
Application 14/929,226
updating metadata to indicate the data's location, but Anderson does not
teach copying data from an unavailable device. Id. According to
Appellants, "Anderson never discloses copying data from an unavailable
storage device in order to 'move' data from the unavailable device." App.
Br. 8. Thus, Appellants contend an ordinarily skilled artisan would not
combine Kushwah and Anderson to "copy[], from the first set of zones to a
second set of zones, indexing information and associated object fragments"
where the first set of zones is "indicated as not currently available for
writing," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 1-7.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Kushwah teaches identifying, parsing, and analyzing
which blocks have been modified since a prior backup and copying these
blocks to a backup system. Final Act. 6-7 ( citing Kushwah, Fig. 2A, 2: 17-
35). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Anderson teaches moving
data from an unavailable device to a backup system. Id. at 7-8 ( citing
Anderson, Fig. 8B, ,r 80).
Appellants' argument that Anderson's "unavailable" device is
"actually unavailable, so a data block cannot be copied from an unavailable
device to 'move' it to an available storage device" (see App. Br. 8) is
unpersuasive because it contradicts the teachings of Anderson. In particular,
as the Examiner finds, Anderson teaches "[i]f the storage system determines
that device 816 is unavailable, one or more of the data blocks on the
unavailable device 816 can be moved to other devices that have available
storage space." Anderson ,r 80. Although the example provided by
Anderson in paragraph 80 relates to logically moving data in the event of a
write request to write data on an unavailable device, Anderson also teaches
4
Appeal2018-002536
Application 14/929,226
moving data from an "unavailable" device. See, e.g., Anderson ,r 56. In
particular, Anderson teaches
after the storage system recognizes that a drive is unavailable,
the storage system may begin to move the data from the
unavailable drive to another drive so that in case the drive
becomes permanently unavailable the migration process has
already begun, but if the drive becomes available, the data that
has not been moved remains on the now available drive.
Id. (emphasis added). In other words, Anderson teaches a drive that is "not
currently available for writing" as recited in claim 1, but nevertheless may
be accessed for the purpose of moving data off the drive in case the drive
becomes "permanently unavailable." Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood from the
teachings of Anderson as a whole that data on an unavailable drive may be
copied for the purpose of backing that data up for future access.
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred because the combination
of Kushwah and Anderson does not teach or suggest "selecting a first set of
zones from a plurality of sets of zones," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br.
10-12; Reply Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in
construing "zone" to encompass Anderson's disclosed "stripes" because
stripes are stored as a plurality of "strips" or "stripe units" spread across a
plurality of devices. See Reply Br. 6. According to Appellants, entire
"stripes" are not stored on a single device, only the component "strips" or
"stripe units." Id. Appellants contend the Examiner's finding that
Anderson's "stripes" correspond to the claimed "zones" is, therefore, in
error. See App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 6-7.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds Anderson teaches storing data stripes comprising data blocks across a
5
Appeal2018-002536
Application 14/929,226
plurality of devices. Ans. 10 ( citing Anderson ,r 25). The Examiner
provides an example, finding Anderson's teachings demonstrate that a data
file comprising four blocks may be stored by saving blocks 1 and 3 on a first
device and blocks 2 and 4 on a second device. Id. Appellants do not dispute
the logic of this example, instead contending the Examiner's use of the word
"stripe" is inaccurate. See Reply Br. 6. However, claim 1 does not recite
selecting a "stripe." Instead, claim 1 recites "selecting a first set of zones
from a plurality of sets of zones." Whether the Examiner refers to the
component units as "stripes" (see Final Act. 4), "blocks" (see Ans. 10), or
"strips" /"stripe units" ( as proposed by Appellants) is irrelevant because
Appellants have not persuasively identified error in the Examiner's
underlying finding that Anderson teaches or suggests storing a plurality of
data units spread across a plurality of devices such that in combination with
Kushwah it teaches or suggests "selecting a first set of zones from a plurality
of sets of zones," as recited in claim 1.
Appellants further contend an ordinarily skilled artisan would not
combine Anderson's "stripes" in the proposed manner because there is no
reason to select a stripe or a portion of a stripe from an unavailable device in
Anderson because those devices cannot be read. See App. Br. 12; Reply Br.
6-7. We are not persuaded by this argument for the same reasons discussed
above regarding the "not currently available" limitation.
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in finding the combination of Anderson's moving data from an
unavailable drive with Kushwah's incremental backup system discloses
"selecting the first set of zones ... based, at least in part, on the first set of
zones being indicated as not currently available for writing" and "copying,
6
Appeal2018-002536
Application 14/929,226
from the first set of zones to a second set of zones, indexing information and
associated object fragments," as recited in claim 1. We, therefore, sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Kushwah and
Anderson. We also sustain the rejection of independent claims 12 and 20,
for which Appellants rely on the same arguments. See App. Br. 7-12. We
also sustain the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19,
for which Appellants rely on the same arguments. See id. at 13.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20.
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. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7