Ex Parte LongshawDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201613315051 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/315,051 12/08/2011 26890 7590 08/02/2016 JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA US, INC. 10000 INNOVATION DRIVE DAYTON, OH 45342 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tom Benjamin Langshaw 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. CONFIRMATION NO. 080490.0113 4686 EXAMINER BISKEBORN, KRISTOFER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER PTAB NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2016 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): michelle. boldman @teradata.com jam es.stover@teradata.com td.uspto@outlook.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TOM BENJAMIN LONGSHA W Appeal2015-000953 Application 13/315,051 Technology Center 2100 Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, HUNG H. BUI, and JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-000953 Application 13/315,051 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 23--44, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Representative Claim 23. A method comprising: by one or more computing devices, receiving a request to modify a database, wherein the database comprises one or more records with one or more fields; by one or more computing devices, accessing a current index of the database and a snapshot index of the database, wherein: the current index and the snapshot index each comprise one or more record-entry pointers; each record-entry pointer points to one or more record pointers in a record data set; each record pointer points to one or more record fields in the record data set, and each record field in the record data set comprises a value of a field of one or more records in the database; by one or more computing devices, determining a first record pointer in the record data set associated with the request, the first record pointer comprising an indicator indicating whether a record-entry pointer points to the first record pointer; modifying the current index in accordance with the request, and modifying the indicator based upon the request. O'Brien Akella Prior Art us 6,038,639 US 2002/0178146 Al 2 Mar. 14,2000 Nov. 28, 2002 Appeal2015-000953 Application 13/315,051 E'xaminer;s Rejection Claims 23--44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Akella and 0 'Brien. ANALYSIS Appellant contends O'Brien does not teach both a current index and a snapshot index of a database. App. Br. 6-7. According to Appellant, the Examiner reads one of the two indices out of claim 23. App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds Akella teaches both a current index and a snapshot index. Ans. 2--4. Appellant's contention against O'Brien alone does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's combination. Further, we highlight Figure 9 and column 17, lines 18-62 of O'Brien teach the claimed current index (the virtual tracks VT#l,2) and the claimed snapshot index (VT#3,4). Thus, contrary to Appellant's contention, O'Brien teaches a current index of the database and a snapshot index of the database. Appellant contends that even if each of the immutable names of 0 'Brien could be considered a record pointer, such record pointer points to a logical address identifying the location of a file on a disk, not to one or more record fields comprising a value of a field of one or more records in the database as recited in claim 23. App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds Appellant does not persuasively distinguish the logical address of a data file as taught by O'Brien from a field comprising a value as recited in claim 23. Ans. 4. Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's finding. The current index (VT#l, 2) shown in Figure 9 of O'Brien comprises a record entry pointer (track number, TN= 1) pointing to a record pointer (logical 3 Appeal2015-000953 Application 13/315,051 address (LA=0.1.0)) that points to a value of a record field that is stored at that logical address. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant has not persuasively distinguished the claimed value of a field of one or more records in the database from the value of the database record field stored at the logical address pointed to by O'Brien's logical address pointer. Appellant contends O'Brien does not teach an indicator indicating that a record-entry pointer points to the record pointer. App. Br. 8-9. The Examiner relies on the reference count of 0 'Brien to teach the claimed indicator. Ans. 4--5. We agree with the Examiner. The record pointer (LA = 0.1.0) shown in Figure 9 of O'Brien comprises an indicator (reference count (RC=2)) indicating that two record-entry pointers (TN=l in current index VT#l,2 and TN= 1 in snapshot index VT#3,4) point to that record pointer. Appellant does not persuasively distinguish the reference count, such as RC shown in Figure 9 of 0 'Brien, from the claimed indicator. Appellant contends the Examiner has not shown a motivation to combine the prior art references, nor that the combination would have achieved the claimed invention, nor that 0 'Brien is analogous to the claimed invention. App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 2-6. In particular, Appellant contends the Examiner's rationale for combining O'Brien and Akella, namely, to facilitate rollback (Final Act. 5), comes entirely from Appellant's disclosure. App. Br. 11-12. Appellant's contention is inconsistent with the Abstract of Akella, which teaches facilitating record rollback using snapshot data. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to show that combining the teachings of 0 'Brien and Akella does anything more than yield the predictable result of facilitating record rollback as taught by Akella. 4 Appeal2015-000953 Application 13/315,051 Appellant contends that each record pointer of 0 'Brien can only point to one field, which results in a database having only one column. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4--5. However, claim 23 recites "each record pointer points to one or more record fields," which encompasses each record pointer pointing to one field. Further, Appellant's contention that an artisan would only apply O'Brien's teachings to a database having only one column makes little sense. "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Appellant has not persuasively shown that creating a snapshot of a database with multiple columns using the process of 0 'Brien was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellant contends 0 'Brien is not in the same field of endeavor as Appellant's invention, because Appellant's invention is in the field of archiving and indexing a database, and 0 'Brien is in the field of creating copies of a data file. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 6-7. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to show the snapshots created by the process of 0 'Brien are outside the field of archiving a database. We agree with the Examiner that creating copies of files, such as the snapshots of O'Brien, is in Appellant's field of archiving a database. Ans. 6. We sustain the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 24-- 44, which fall with claim 23. 5 Appeal2015-000953 Application 13/315,051 DECISION The rejection of claims 23--44 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation