Ex Parte Barghouthi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2018

14708448 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/708,448 05/11/2015 Soloman J. Barghouthi
46320 7590 12/18/2018
Shutts & Bowen LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
525 Okeechobee Blvd
# 1100
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
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.
RSW920140032US2
(812CON)
CONFIRMATION NO.
6620
EXAMINER
ANDERSEN, KRISTOPHER E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2018 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
sgreenberg@shutts.com
aschneider@shutts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SOLOMAN J. BARGHOUTHI, DANA L. PRICE,
STEPHEN KENNA, and CHARLES LEV A Y
Appeal2018-004706
Application 14/708,448
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, BETH Z. SHAW,
and SCOTT B. HOWARD Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-5, which represent all the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
November 20, 2017 ("App. Br."), Reply Brief filed March 30, 2018 ("Reply
Br."), the Specification filed May 11, 2014 ("Spec."), the Examiner's
Answer mailed January 30, 2018 ("Ans."), and the Final Rejection mailed
May 5, 2017 ("Final Act.").
2 Appellants identify International Business Machine Corporation as the real
party in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2018-004706
Application 14/708,448
RELATED APPEALS
This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2018-004665 for related
Application No. 14/476,696.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to database connection management
for multi-tenant environments. Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue and is reproduced below:
1. A method for service level agreement
(SLA) cognizant database connection management for
multi-tenant environments, the method comprising:
receiving different requests for data in a database from
different application instances executing in memory of a host
computing system supporting a multitenant computing
environment;
determining a priority for each of the requests;
selecting for each request a particular portion of a
database connection pool of a multiplicity of database
connections to the database, the particular portion being
associated with a corresponding priority of a corresponding one
of each of the requests, each portion of the database connection
pool comprising one or more of the database connections; and,
processing each of the requests through a respectively
selected one of the portions of the database connection pool.
REJECTION
The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1-5 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 6-15 of
copending Application No. 14/476,696. Final Act. 6. This rejection was
withdrawn in the Answer because Appellants previously filed a Terminal
Disclaimer. Ans. 3.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 7-8.
2
Appeal2018-004706
Application 14/708,448
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Westerman (US 2015/0127611 Al). Final Act. 9-10.
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatenable over Westerman, Saha (US 7,337,226 B2), and Bhogi (US
8,145,759 B2). Final Act. 10-12.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Section 101
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5 under 35
U.S.C. § 101. App. Br. 3-9; Reply Br. 2-7. The Examiner determines the
claims are directed to an abstract idea of "comparing new and stored
information and using rules to identify options." Final Act. 7. The
Examiner determines that the claims do not include additional elements
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Id.
Appellants argue that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
App. Br. 3-9. Instead, Appellants argue, the claims are directed to an
improvement to the functionality of a computer. Id. We agree with
Appellants.
We determine that Appellants' claims are patent eligible as directed to
a specific improvement in a technological process (i.e., different requests for
data in the database are received from different application instances in order
to determine a priority for each of the requests). Our reviewing court has
approved claims of this general character. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys.,
Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Finjan, the court held
claims patent eligible because they recited specific steps for generating a
security profile that identifies suspicious code and linking it to a
downloadable that accomplished the desired result. Similarly, the claims
3
Appeal2018-004706
Application 14/708,448
here recite specific steps for receiving different requests for data in a
database from different application instances to determine a priority for each
of the requests. Accordingly, the claims at issue are not directed to an
abstract idea. Because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under
step one of the Alice analysis, we need not proceed to step two of that
analysis. The claims here are eligible because they are directed to an
improvement in the functioning of a computer by selecting different requests
for data in the database received from different application instances to
determine a priority for each of the requests.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-5 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Anticipation
Appellants argues Westerman is silent as to a "database connection
pool" and silent "on the notion the pool that includes one or more database
connections such that a particular request is chosen to utilize a particular one of
the connections in the pool based upon a common priority." App. Br. 12. In
the Reply Brief, Appellants acknowledge that Westerman does disclose a
"connection pool," but argue this is optionally included in an SLA. Reply Br.
9. Appellants argue the priority levels of connection pools in Westerman are
not sufficient to account for "selecting of a particular portion of a database
connection pool." Id. at 9-10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Westerman
discloses, as the Examiner finds, "multiple priority levels of connection
pools per application." Ans. 10 (citing Westerman ,r 42). Additionally,
Westerman discloses that connections "may be prioritized for purposes of
4
Appeal2018-004706
Application 14/708,448
rate limitations, perhaps based on the associated user, the type of
operations(s) requested, and/or other criteria." Id. at 10-11 ( citing
Westerman ,r 68) ( emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner's findings.
We also agree with the Examiner that Westerman teaches in
paragraph 68 that the particular portion of each the requests or type of
operation "requested" "may be prioritized." Id. Under the broadest
reasonable construction of the claim, Westerman's disclosure is sufficient to
teach "select for each of the requests a particular one of the portions of the
database connection pool associated with a corresponding priority of a
corresponding one of each of the requests," because prioritizing the
connections for certain requests for a type of operation associates the
requests with a corresponding priority of each of the requests.
Appellants argue that the factual determination of anticipation
requires an identical disclosure of each element of a claimed invention in a
single reference. Reply Br. 10. Yet, anticipation "is not an 'ipsissimis
verbis' test." In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing
Akzo N. V. v. United States Int 'l Trade Comm 'n, 808 F .2d 14 71, 14 79 & n.11
(Fed. Cir. 1986)). "An anticipatory reference, ... need not duplicate word
for word what is in the claims." Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus.,
953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As discussed above, the Examiner
sufficiently explains how Westerman anticipates the claims.
Therefore, for these reasons, and for the additional reasons stated in
the Final Rejection and Answer, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of
claim 1. We sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 2 and 3, which
are not separately argued with particularity. We also sustain the rejections
5
Appeal2018-004706
Application 14/708,448
of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because Appellants present no
new or additional arguments for those claims.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5 is
affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
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).
AFFIRMED
6