Ex Parte Bamford et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 9, 201210831413 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation