`
`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.usplo.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`95/001,926
`
`03/02/2012
`
`7161506 .
`
`20132.0005.RX506
`
`5983
`
`04/25/2012
`7590
`26111
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.LLLC.
`1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON,DC 20005
`
`7
`
`LEUNG,CHRISTINA Y
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`04/25/2012
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`NetApp; Rackspace
`
`Exhibit1009 Page 1
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1009 Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`My, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Commissionerfor Patents
`United States Patents and Trademark Office
`P.O.Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uSpto.gov
`
`DO NOT USEIN PALM PRINTER
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`NOVAK DRUCE+ QUIGG LLP
`Meo
`2ND REEXAM GROUP
`APR 25 20°?
`1000 LOUISIANA STREET, FIFTY-THIRD FLOOR
`
`OUSTON,TX77 CENTRALRECKAMINATION UNIT
`
`Date:
`
`na Qj
`
`lua
`
`HOUSTON, TX 77002
`
`|
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROLNO. : 95001926
`
`PATENT NO. : 7161506
`
`TECHNOLOGY CENTER: 3999
`
`ART UNIT : 3992
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified Reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may oncefile
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no
`responsive submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondencerelating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed.
`to the Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end
`of the communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`PTOL-2070(Rev.07-04)
`
`NetApp; Rackspace
`
`Exhibit1009 Page 2
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1009 Page 2
`
`

`

`Patent Under Reexamination
`Control No.
`OFFICE ACTIONIN INTER PARTES|95101 926
`REEXAMINA TION
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address.--
`
`Responsive to the communication(s)filed by:
`
`Patent Owner on
`
`Third Party(ies) on 02 March, 2012
`
`RESPONSE TIMES ARE SET TO EXPIRE AS FOLLOWS:
`
`For Patent Owner's Response:
`2 MONTH(S) from the mailing date of this action. 37 CFR 1.945. EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE
`GOVERNED BY37 CFR 1.956.
`7
`For Third Party Requester's Comments on the Patent Owner Response:
`30 DAYSfrom the date of service of any patent owner's response. 37 CFR 1.947. NO EXTENSIONS
`OF TIME ARE PERMITTED. 35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2).
`
`All correspondencerelating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central
`Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addressesgiven at the end ofthis Office action.
`
`This action is not an Action Closing Prosecution under 37 CFR 1.949, noris it a Right of Appeal Notice under
`37 CFR 1.953.
`
`PART I. THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`1.L] Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892
`2.1] Information Disclosure Citation, PTO/SB/08
`3.0
`PARTIl. SUMMARY OF ACTION:
`
`
`
`
`1a. X] Claims 91,97 and 99 are subject to reexamination.
`
`1b.x]Claims 1-90,92-96 and 98 are not subject to reexamination.
`2.
`[_] Claims
`have been canceled.
`[] Claims
`are confirmed. [Unamendedpatent claims]
`L] Claims
`are patentable. [Amendedor new claims]
`XX] Claims 91,97 and 99 are rejected.
`
`
`are objectedto.
`__[_] are not acceptable.
`[_] are acceptable
`[_] The drawingsfiled on
`(_] The drawing correction requestfiled on
`is:
`(_] approved.
`[_] disapproved.
`(J Acknowledgmentis madeof the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has:
`~
`({)been received.
`__[_] not been received.
`[_] been filed in Application/Control No 95001926.
`10. _] Other
`
`oOANOAAAWw L] Claims
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2064 (08/06)
`
`.
`
`Paper No. 20120404
`
`NetApp; Rackspace
`
`Exhibit1009 Page 3
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1009 Page 3
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,926 Page2-.
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Reexamination
`
`1.
`
`Claims 91, 97, and 99 of Fallon (US 7,161,506 B2) are being reexamined. Claims 1-90,
`
`92-96, and 98 are not being reexamined.
`
`References and Documents Cited in this Action
`
`Fallon (US 7,161,506 B2)
`
`Sebastian (US 6,253,264 B1)
`
`Kawashima(US 5,805,932 A)
`
`3PR Request (request for reexamination filed 02 March 2012)
`|
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`.
`
`2.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which formsthe basisfor all
`
`obviousnessrejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) Apatent may not be obtained thoughthe inventionis not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 ofthistitle, if the differences between the subject matter soughtto be patented andthe priorart are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the time the invention was madeto a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`manner in which the invention was made.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 91, 97, and 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Sebastian in view of Kawashima.
`
`Theserejections are adopted substantially as proposed by 3PR in 3PR Request.
`
`Regarding claims 91, 97, and 99, Sebastian discloses a method comprising:
`
`receiving a data block, wherein the data block is included in a data stream (column 1,
`lines 19-23);
`|
`
`outputting the data block in a compressed form (column3, lines 31-36; column 5, lines.
`
`14-18):
`
`NetApp; Rackspace
`
`Exhibit1009 Page 4
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1009 Page 4
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,926
`. Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`wherein outputting the data block in the compressed form comprises determining whether
`
`to compress the data block with content dependent data compression based on the type of the
`
`data block (column 2, lines 1-42; column 5, lines 14-18; column 6, lines 22-40) or to compress
`
`the data block with a single data compression encoder(i.e., Sebastian discloses a generic
`
`compression systém; column 1, lines 55-60; column4, lines 9-20).
`
`Further regarding claims 91, 97, and 99, Sebastian does not disclose determining whether
`
`to output the data block in received form or in a compressed form; and outputting the data block
`
`in received form or the compressed form based onthe determination.
`
`However, Kawashimateaches a system that is related to the one described by Sebastian,
`including data compression, and further teaches determining whether to output the data block in
`
`received form (i.e., as “pre-compression data’’) or in a compressed form; and outputting the data
`
`block in received form or the compressed form based on the determination (column 29, lines 43-
`
`67; column 30,lines 1-23).
`
`Regarding claims 91, 97, and 99, it would have been obviousto a person of ordinary skill
`in the art to output the data block in received form or in compressed form based ona
`| determination as taught by Kawashima in the method disclosed by Sebastian in order to ensure
`
`that resources are used for compression only when compression would be effective.
`
`Further regarding claim 91 in particular, Sebastian discloses compressing the data block
`
`to provide the data block in the compressed form in accordancewith the determination whether
`
`to compress the data block with content dependent data compressionorthe single data
`
`compression encoder, wherein the data block in the compressed form is provided by a lossy
`
`compression technique (e.g., when “some data loss may be acceptable” or when someprecision
`
`NetApp; Rackspace
`
`Exhibit1009 Page 5
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1009 Page 5
`
`

`

`-Application/Control Number: 95/001,926
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`in floating point values is lost; column3, lines 39-42; column 18, lines 62-67; column19, lines
`
`1-10).
`
`Further regarding claim 97 in particular, Sebastian discloses that the single data
`
`compression encoderislossless (e.g., the default filter may use LZ compression, whichis
`
`lossless; column 4, lines 9-20) andat least one encoderassociated with the content dependent
`data compressionis lossy (e.g., when “some data loss may be acceptable” or when some
`precision in floating point valuesis lost; column 3, lines 39-42; column18,lines 62-67; column
`
`19, lines 1-10).
`
`Further regarding claim 99 in particular, Sebastian discloses that the single data
`
`compression encoderis lossless (e.g., the default filter may use LZ compression, whichis
`
`lossless; column4, lines 9-20), at least one encoder associated with the content dependent data
`compressionis lossless, and at least another oneencoder associated with the content dependent
`data compressionis lossy (i.e., Sebastian discloses that someofthe content dependent
`
`compression can belossless while some of the content dependent compression can be lossy when
`
`“some data loss may be acceptable” or when someprecisionin floating point valuesislost;
`
`column 3, lines 39-42; column 18, lines 62-67; column 19, lines 1-10).
`
`Conclusion
`
`4.
`
`In order to ensure full consideration of any amendments, affidavits or declarations, or
`
`other documents as evidence of patentability, such documents must be submitted in response to
`
`this Office action. Submissionsafter the next Office action, which is intended to be an Action ©
`Closing Prosecution (ACP), will be governed by 37 CFR 1.116(b) and (d), which will be strictly
`
`enforced.
`
`NetApp; Rackspace
`
`Exhibit1009 Page6
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1009 Page 6
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,926
`Art Unit: 3992
`|
`5.
`All correspondencerelating to this interpartes reexamination proceeding should be
`
`,
`
`Page 5
`
`directed:
`
`By mail to:
`
`Mail Stop /nter Partes Reexam
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissionerof Patents
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Byfaxto:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Byhandto:
`
`Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany St.
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to the Central Reexamination
`
`Unit at telephone number(571) 272-7705.
`
`/Christina Y. Leung/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`/D.M.H./
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`/Daniel J Ryman/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`NetApp; Rackspace
`
`Exhibit1009 Page /7
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1009 Page 7
`
`