Ex Parte Bamford et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 9, 2012

10831413 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 2012)

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.
10/831,413 04/23/2004 Roger J. Bamford 50277-2325 1036
42425 7590 02/09/2012
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE
One Almaden Boulevard
12th Floor
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
TRUONG, LOAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROGER J. BAMFORD, SASHIKANTH CHANDRASEKARAN,
and ANGELO PRUSCINO
____________

Appeal 2009-010762
Application 10/831,413
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 27, 29-39, 41-54, 56, and 57. Claims 40 and 55 stand
objected to as being dependent from a rejected base claim, and therefore, are
not before us. (Ans. 28) Claims 1-26 and 28 were cancelled during
prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-010762
Application 10/831,413

2
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates generally to managing data in a shared-
nothing database system running on shared disk hardware. (Spec. [para.
0001]). More particularly, “techniques are provided for recovering the data
owned by a failed node using multiple recovery nodes operating in parallel.”
(Abstract).
Illustrative Claim
27. A method comprising:
determining that a particular node has failed,
wherein the particular node is in a shared-nothing
database system in which at least some database data, on
which the particular node performed operations, is stored
on a particular storage device; and

in response to determining that the failure has
occurred, performing parallel recovery, by two or more
non-failed nodes that have physical access to the
particular storage device, of at least some of the database
data on which the particular node performed operations.

Rejections
1. Claims 27, 30, 41-43, 45, 56, and 57 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Dias
(US 5,907,849) and Hvasshovd (US 5,423,037).1

1 Although claims 40 and 55 are listed in the Examiner’s rejection, as noted
above, the rejection of claims 40 and 55 was withdrawn and these claims
stand objected to as being dependent from a rejected base claim. (Ans. 28).
Therefore, claims 40 and 55 are not before us on appeal.
Appeal 2009-010762
Application 10/831,413

3
2. Claims 29, 31-39, 44, and 46-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Dias,
Hvasshovd, and Putzolu (US Pub. 2001/0039550 A1).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal:

Under §103, did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Dias and Hvasshovd would have taught or
suggested “in response to determining that the failure has
occurred, performing parallel recovery, by two or more non-
failed nodes that have physical access to the particular storage
device, of at least some of the database data on which the
particular node performed operations,” within the meaning of
independent claim 27, and the commensurate language of
independent claim 43? (emphasis added).

ANALYSIS
Claims 27, 30, 41-43, 45, 56, and 57
Appellants contend that the cited references, most particularly
Hvasshovd, fail to teach or suggest, “two or more non-failed nodes which
perform parallel recovery must be nodes that all have physical access to the
storage device that stores the data on which the recovery operations are to
be performed.” (App. Br. 6). Based upon our review of the record, we find
Appeal 2009-010762
Application 10/831,413

4
the weight of the evidence supports the Appellants’ position for essentially
the same reasons articulated in the Briefs.

The Examiner contends:
As for the non-failed nodes having physical access to the
particular storage device, as shown by Hvasshovd fig. 5, the
two shared nothing node groups are simultaneously generating
and storing subfragments of primary replica fragment 2 and
[n]ot standby replica fragment 6, where each node has direct
connection to N neighboring nodes (col. 3 lines 15-26) but also
nodes 0, 1 and 3 are part of the node group of the failed node 2
(fig. 5) which has direct connection to each other and also
shared resources. For these reasons, [the] [E]xaminer concluded
that Hvasshovd does in fact teach the limitations mentioned
above.
(Ans. 27)
We are in agreement with Appellants that Hvasshovd does not teach
or suggest that the recovery is performed by two or more nodes that have
access to the same storage device. As noted by Appellants, even though the
nodes in Hvasshovd are interconnected, Hvasshovd does not teach or
suggest that the corresponding nodes have access to the storage unit of the
failed node, as required by the claim language. (App. Br. 6-7) Instead,
Hvasshovd discloses that replicas of the unavailable fragments from the
failed node are stored on the remaining available nodes. (Fig. 5 and Col. 6 ll.
4-11). Thus, it is our view that Hvasshovd does not teach or suggest that the
corresponding nodes have access to the storage device of the failed nodes.
Moreover, as pointed out by Appellants, Hvasshovd explicitly teaches
that in the “shared nothing” hardware architecture disclosed in Hvasshovd,
“primary nor secondary memory can be shared between nodes.” (App. Br.
Appeal 2009-010762
Application 10/831,413

5
5, citing Hvasshovd, col. 3, ll. 61-65) (emphasis added). We do not find, nor
has the Examiner established, that Dias cures the deficiencies of Hvasshovd.
Based on this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred
in determining that the cited references would have taught or suggested “in
response to determining that the failure has occurred, performing parallel
recovery, by two or more non-failed nodes that have physical access to the
particular storage device, of at least some of the database data on which the
particular node performed operations” (emphasis added), within the meaning
of independent claims 27 and 43. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
first-stated § 103 rejection of claims 27 and 43 and associated dependent
claims 30, 41,42, 45, 56, and 57.

Claims 29, 31-39, 44, and 46-54
Dependent claims 29, 31-39, 44, and 46-54 stand rejected under § 103
as being unpatentable over Dias, Hvasshovd, and Putzolu. (Ans. 9). We do
not find, nor has the Examiner established, that Putzolu cures the
deficiencies of Dias and Hvasshovd, as discussed above. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29, 31-39, 44, and 46-54 for the
same reasons discussed supra regarding independent claims 27 and 43.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 27, 29-39, 41-54,
56, and 57 under § 103.
ORDER
REVERSED
pgc