Ex Parte Aahlad et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 24, 2019

12069986 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/069,986 02/13/2008 Y eturu Aahlad
22430 7590 04/26/2019
YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
ALAN W. YOUNG
4370 ALPINE ROAD
SUITE 202
PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028
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.
WAND001USD 8271
EXAMINER
EVANS, KIMBERLYL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2019 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):
alan@younglawfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YETURU AAHLAD, RAHUL BHARGA VA,
JAMES MILTON CAMPIGLI, DAVID JAMES RICHARDS,
and NAEEM MOHAMMAD AKHTAR
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER S. BISK, and JENNIFER L.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to finally reject claims 15-20 and 24-49. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is a replicated state machine comprising, among
other things, a proposal manager and agreement manager. The proposal
manager manages proposals issued by a node of a distributed application for
enabling coordinated proposal execution by all other application nodes. The
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as WANdisco, Inc. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
agreement manager facilitates agreement on the proposals. See generally
Abstract. Claim 15 is illustrative:
15. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, at a first replicator comprising a first replicated
state machine, a first proposal to update a first replicated
repository associated with the first replicated state machine
from a first application node of a plurality of peer application
nodes coupled to a computer network, the first application node
running on a first computing device coupled to the network;
receiving, at a second replicator comprising a second
replicated state machine, a second proposal to update a second
replicated repository associated with the second replicated state
machine from a second application node of the plurality of peer
application nodes coupled to the computer network, the second
application node running on a second computing device
coupled to the network;
propagating the first proposal from the first replicator to
the second replicator and propagating the second proposal from
the second replicator to the first replicator such that both the
first and second replicators coordinate to maintain at least the
first and second replicated repositories in sync with each other
in a real-time manner;
enabling concurrent agreements to be reached on at least
the first and second proposals received from at least the first
and the second application nodes, each of the peer application
nodes being configured to serve as a proposal proposer or a
proposal acceptor at any given point in time, wherein the first
and second replicated state machines are configured to enable
the first replicated state machine to reach agreement on the first
proposal concurrently with the second replicated state machine
reaching agreement on the second proposal;
precluding repeated preemptions of rounds in attempting
to reach agreement on the proposals;
storing in each of the plurality of peer applications nodes
coupled to the computer network, using a persistent storage
device, a local copy of an ordered global sequence of proposals
that includes the first and second proposals, such that the local
2
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
copy of the ordered global sequence of proposals stored in the
persistent storage devices of all peer application nodes in the
computer network is maintained to be identical;
periodically, by each peer application node, reclaiming
memory space on the respective persistent storage device by a
periodic exchange of messages among the other peer
application nodes, the exchanged messages providing an
indication of those proposals that are determined by the first
and second replicated state machines as being no longer
required by any of the peer application nodes and that may be
deleted from at least the local copy of the ordered global
sequence of proposals.
THE REJECTI0NS2
The Examiner rejected claims 15-20 and 24-493 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 12-17.4
The Examiner rejected claims 15-20 and 24-49 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lorch (US 2005/0283644 Al; published Dec.
22, 2005) and Gamache (US 6,401,120 Bl; issued June 4, 2002). Final Act.
18-52.
2 Because the Examiner withdrew written description rejections under§ 112,
first paragraph (Ans. 4-5), those rejections are not before us.
3 Although claim 27 depends from cancelled claim 23 (as does claim 28
indirectly via claim 27), we, nonetheless, presume that claim 27 was
intended to depend from claim 15. We also leave the question of whether
this inconsistency renders claims 27 and 28 indefinite under§ 112, second
paragraph, to the Examiner to consider after this opinion.
4 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Office Action mailed
May 18, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 2, 2017
("Br."); and (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed December 7, 2017 ("Ans.").
3
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
PROCEDURAL MATTER
Although Appellants argue that the present application should be
given "special" status due to its pendency (Br. 21-22), such matters are
petitionable-not appealable-and, therefore, not before us. Accord Ans. 4
(noting this petitionable matter).
THE INELIGIBILITY REJECTION
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea, namely facilitating management of proposals in a distributed
computing system, which is said to (1) constitute an "idea of itself';
(2) correspond to a fundamental economic practice; and (3) organize human
activity by receiving, propagating, updating, and reclaiming memory. Final
Act. 12-13; Ans. 6-8. The Examiner adds that the claims do not include
elements that add significantly more than the abstract idea, but merely recite
various computer components at a high level of generality that perform
well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. Final Act.
13-15; Ans. 8-10. Based on these determinations, the Examiner concludes
that the claims are ineligible under§ 101. Final Act. 12-17; Ans. 6-13.
Appellants argue that the claimed invention is not directed to an
abstract idea. Br. 28-44. According to Appellants, the claimed invention
relates to software technology for (1) managing proposals from plural peer
application nodes coupled to a computer network, and (2) reclaiming
persistent memory space used to manage the proposals. Br. 28-31. These
concepts are not only said to be tied inextricably to computer technology,
but they also are said to improve operation of replicated state machines in a
4
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
computer network to maintain consistency of a replicated repository and,
therefore, are distinct from concepts that have been held as abstract. Br.
28-44.
ISSUE
Under § 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15-20
and 24-49 as directed to ineligible subject matter? This issue turns on
whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether
recited elements-considered individually and as an ordered
combination-transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible
application of that abstract idea.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l,
573 U.S. 208,216 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
5
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981 )); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
(15 How.) 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S.
at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). That
said, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment." Id. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now
6
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( citation omitted). "A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to
ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
"[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Under that
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
7
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
ANALYSIS
Claims 15-20 and 24--49: Alice/Mayo Step One
Independent claim 15 recites
[a] computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, at a first replicator comprising a first
replicated state machine, a first proposal to update a first
replicated repository associated with the first replicated state
machine from a first application node of a plurality of peer
application nodes coupled to a computer network, the first
application node running on a first computing device coupled
to the network;
receiving, at a second replicator comprising a second
replicated state machine, a second proposal to update a second
replicated repository associated with the second replicated
state machine from a second application node of the plurality of
peer application nodes coupled to the computer network, the
second application node running on a second computing device
coupled to the network;
propagating the first proposal from the first replicator to
the second replicator and propagating the second proposal
from the second replicator to the first replicator such that both
the first and second replicators coordinate to maintain at least
the first and second replicated repositories in sync with each
other in a real-time manner;
8
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
enabling concurrent agreements to be reached on at least
the first and second proposals received from at least the first
and the second application nodes, each of the peer application
nodes being configured to serve as a proposal proposer or a
proposal acceptor at any given point in time, wherein the first
and second replicated state machines are configured to enable
the first replicated state machine to reach agreement on the
first proposal concurrently with the second replicated state
machine reaching agreement on the second proposal;
precluding repeated preemptions of rounds in attempting
to reach agreement on the proposals;
storing in each of the plurality of peer applications nodes
coupled to the computer network, using a persistent storage
device, a local copy of an ordered global sequence of proposals
that includes the first and second proposals, such that the local
copy of the ordered global sequence of proposals stored in the
persistent storage devices of all peer application nodes in the
computer network is maintained to be identical;
periodically, by each peer application node, reclaiming
memory space on the respective persistent storage device by a
periodic exchange of messages among the other peer
application nodes, the exchanged messages providing an
indication of those proposals that are determined by the first
and second replicated state machines as being no longer
required by any of the peer application nodes and that may be
deleted from at least the local copy of the ordered global
sequence of proposals. [5J
As paragraph 5 on the Specification's page 46 explains, a replicated
state machine is a preferred enabler of distributed computing solutions that
5 Unless otherwise indicated, we italicize or quote text associated with
various recited limitations for emphasis and clarity.
6 Because the Specification renumbers paragraphs for various sections,
certain paragraph numbers are duplicated, thus rendering pinpoint citations
to particular paragraph numbers problematic on this record. See, e.g., Spec.
2 (identifying paragraphs 1 to 3 in the related applications section, yet also
identifying paragraph 1 in the background section); see also id. at 7.
9
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
include, for example, replicated information repositories. Although
replicated state machines and/or replicated information repositories can
generate, manipulate, and manage information concurrently, they
nonetheless have various shortcomings that, among other things, impact
scalability adversely including ( 1) the state machines' proneness to repeated
proposer preemption in an agreement protocol; and (2) the information
repositories' requiring a single central coordinator through which all updates
must be routed. Spec. 4, ,i,i 6-8. Also, in conventional applications, only
one replicated information repository is used at a given time in disk
mirroring applications, and information changes are propagated from the
node at which the change originated to all other nodes, thus, requiring a
large amount of bandwidth. Spec. 6, ,i 9. And if the master repository is
corrupted, it would propagate corrupted information to all other replicas as
well. Id.
The present invention, however, overcomes these and other
drawbacks by integrating-in each distributed application system 105 of a
multi-site computing system architecture 100-a replicator 120 with a
respective repository replica 125, where the replicators are connected via a
Wide Area Network (WAN) as shown in Appellants' Figure 1 reproduced
below. See Spec. 10, ,i 14.
(identifying two additional instances of paragraph 1). For clarity and
consistency, we refer to paragraph numbers and their corresponding pages.
10
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
Mulli-Si!e Computing System Archileclure
100
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Distributed Application System I Distributed Application System I 105 105 I I
I
Distributed Distributed I Distributed I Distributed I
Application Application Application
I
Application
Node Node Node Node
I
115 115 115 115
--------------~------ --------~-----
~ ~ I
I Replicator i 20
WAN
Replicator 120 110
t
Repository 125 Repository 125
I
Multi-Site architecture with replicators and repositories for each
distributed application system in Appellants' Figure 1
As paragraph 16 on the Specification's page 11 explains, each
replicator writes updates from its respective distributed application system to
the repository replica of each other distributed application system. To this
end, each replicator coordinates with other peer replicators to ensure that all
repository replicas stay synchronized with each other. Spec. 11, ,-J 16.
Notably, Appellants' multi-site computing system architecture does not rely
on a central transaction coordinator unlike conventional solutions, but rather
ensures that every repository replica is synchronized with every other
repository replica in real time so that users at all nodes always work with the
same information. Id. at 11-12, ,-J 17.
As a result of this replicator/repository integration, each repository
replica becomes an active node on the WAN with its own transaction
11
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
coordinator, namely its respective replicator, that accepts local updates and
propagates them to all other repository replicas in real time. Id. at 12, ,i 18.
Turning to claim 15, we first note that the claim recites a method and,
therefore, falls within the process category of§ 101. But despite falling
within this statutory category, we must still determine whether the claim is
directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217. To this end, we must determine whether (1) the claim recites a
judicial exception, and (2) fails to integrate the exception into a practical
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55. If both elements are
satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of
the Alice/Mayo test. See id.
In the rejection, the Examiner determines that claim 15 is directed to
an abstract idea, namely facilitating management of proposals in a
distributed computing system, which is said to (1) constitute an "idea of
itself'; (2) correspond to a fundamental economic practice; and (3) organize
human activity by receiving, propagating, updating, and reclaiming memory.
Final Act. 12-13; Ans. 6-8. To determine whether a claim recites an
abstract idea, we (1) identify the claim's specific limitations that recite an
abstract idea, and (2) determine whether the identified limitations fall within
12
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
certain subject matter groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts 7; (b)
certain methods of organizing human activi ty8; or ( c) mental processes. 9
Here, although the claimed invention manages proposals in a
distributed computing system as the Examiner indicates (Final Act. 12), the
claimed invention is, nevertheless, not directed to an abstract idea. That is,
even if both proposal receiving clauses in claim 15 are insignificant
pre-solution activity as the Examiner seems to suggest (see Final Act. 15),
the recited proposal propagation and concurrent agreement enablement
steps 10 do not fall within any of the above categories of the agency's
guidelines.
7 Mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
8 Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
9 Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52.
10 These steps are recited as (1) "propagating the first proposal . .. and
propagating the second proposal ... such that both the first and second
replicators coordinate to maintain at least the first and second replicated
repositories in sync with each other in a real-time manner"; and (2)
enabling concurrent agreements to be reached on at least
the first and second proposals ... wherein the first and second
replicated state machines are configured to enable the first
replicated state machine to reach agreement on the first
proposal concurrently with the second replicated state machine
reaching agreement on the second proposal.
13
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
Despite the Examiner's determinations to the contrary (Final Act.
12-13; Ans. 6-7), the recited proposal propagation and concurrent
agreement enablement steps are not reasonably analogous to the methods of
organizing human activity under the agency's guidelines, including
fundamental economic practices. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. As the
guidelines indicate, exemplary fundamental economic practices include
hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk. See id. at n.13 ( citing supporting
cases including Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20 (holding that using a third party to
mediate settlement risk and risk hedging are abstract ideas), and Bilski, 561
U.S. at 611-12 ( concluding that hedging is a fundamental economic
practice)). Although fundamental economic practices are not limited to
these particular examples in the guidelines, the recited proposal propagation
and concurrent agreement enablement steps in claim 15, nonetheless, have
nothing to do with organizing human activity, let alone fundamental
economic practices.
Rather, these limitations recite particular machine-oriented functions
that ensure agreements are reached concurrently on proposals received from
nodes to update replicated repositories. As noted previously, this concurrent
agreement on these received repository update proposals ensures that every
repository replica is synchronized with every other repository replica in real
time so that users at all nodes always work with the same information. See
Spec. 11-12, ,i 17.
To be sure, merely communicating information in real time does not,
without more, render claims non-abstract. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(holding claims directed to monitoring delivery of real-time information to
14
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
users or measuring such delivery as directed to an abstract idea); see also id.
(citingElec. Power Grp., LLCv. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-53 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (noting that collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
results is an abstract idea, even when undertaken in real time)); Clarilogic,
Inc. v. FormFree Holdings Corp., 681 F. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(unpublished) (holding ineligible claimed method for providing certified
financial data indicating financial risk about an individual where a computer
generated a report from the financial account data including real-time
transaction and balance data).
But here, the claimed invention does merely communicate
information in real time as in the above-noted cases. Rather, the claimed
invention achieves a technical improvement by propagating repository
update proposals and associated replicator coordination to ensure that every
repository replica is synchronized with every other repository replica in real
time so that users at all nodes always work with the same information. See
Spec. 11-12, ,i 17. As was the case in in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claimed
invention here uses a combined order of specific rules in a process designed
specifically to achieve an improved technological result, namely real-time
repository replica synchronization. Accord Br. 36-40 (discussing McRO).
In short, the recited machine-oriented steps improve the system's
updating functionality via real-time synchronization, and do not organize
human activity under any reasonable interpretation of the agency's
guidelines. Nor do these functions fall within the guidelines' other
categories of abstract ideas, namely mathematical concepts and mental
processes, for there are no relationships, mathematical formulas, equations,
15
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
or calculations recited, nor can these functions be performed mentally or by
pen and paper. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary
mathematical concepts and mental processes).
We reach a similar conclusion regarding the limitations calling for (1)
storing a local copy of an ordered global sequence of proposals, such that
the local copy is maintained to be identical for all peer application nodes,
and (2) each node reclaiming memory space periodically by exchanging
messages among the other nodes indicating that certain proposals are no
longer required and may be deleted from at least the local copy. 11 Here
again, these steps do not organize human activity under the agency's
guidelines, but rather are machine-oriented functions that likewise achieve a
technical improvement, namely conserving and preserving memory space
when replicated state machines determine that certain repository replica
11 These steps are recited as ( 1)
storing in each of the plurality of peer applications nodes
coupled to the computer network, using a persistent storage
device, a local copy of an ordered global sequence of proposals
that includes the first and second proposals, such that the local
copy of the ordered global sequence of proposals stored in the
persistent storage devices of all peer application nodes in the
computer network is maintained to be identical;
and (2)
periodically, by each peer application node, reclaiming
memory space on the respective persistent storage device by a
periodic exchange of messages among the other peer
application nodes, the exchanged messages providing an
indication of those proposals that are determined by the first
and second replicated state machines as being no longer
required by any of the peer application nodes and that may be
deleted from at least the local copy of the ordered global
sequence of proposals.
16
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
update proposals can be deleted from the local copy since the nodes no
longer need them. Nor do these machine-oriented functions fall within the
guidelines' other categories of abstract ideas, namely mathematical concepts
and mental processes, for there are no relationships, mathematical formulas,
equations, or calculations recited, nor can these functions be performed
mentally or by pen and paper. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing
exemplary mathematical concepts and mental processes).
In short, because the foregoing recited limitations do not fit in any of
the categories of abstract ideas in the agency's guidelines, they do not recite
an abstract idea. See id. at 54. Accordingly, the claimed invention, when
considered as a whole, is not directed to an abstract idea and is, therefore,
eligible under § 101 for that reason alone. We, therefore, need not
determine whether the recited limitations integrate a judicial exception into a
practical application, for there is no such exception recited. See id. at 54-55.
Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing the Examiner's
ineligibility rejection, we also need not address whether any additional
recited elements add significantly more to the abstract idea to provide an
inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
(1) independent claim 15; (2) independent claim 44 that recites
commensurate limitations; and (3) the dependent claims for similar reasons.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Regarding claim 15, the Examiner finds that Lorch discloses, among
other things, (1) receiving first and second repository update proposals at
first and second replicators, respectively; (2) propagating the first and
17
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
second proposals to the second and first replicators, respectively, such that
both replicators coordinate to maintain the replicated repositories in
synchronization with each other in a real-time manner; and (3) enabling
concurrent agreements to be reached on the received proposals, where the
first replicated state machine reaches agreement on the first proposal
concurrently with the second replicated state machine reaching agreement on
the second proposal. Final Act. 18-26. Although the Examiner
acknowledges that Lorch does not preclude repeated preemptions of rounds
in attempting to reach a proposal agreement, the Examiner cites Gamache
for teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been
obvious. Final Act. 27.
Appellants argue that although any device in Lorch can be a "leader"
that issues operation-based proposals for other devices to vote on, there can
be only one such leader at a time-not two. Br. 44-49. Given this
constraint, Appellants contend that Lorch does not teach or suggest two or
more leaders propagating proposals to one another and/or reaching
agreements on different proposals concurrently as claimed. Id. at 49-50.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 by finding
that Lorch and Gamache collectively would have taught or suggested the
recited proposal propagation and concurrent agreement steps?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner's reliance on the secondary
reference to Gamache is undisputed, as is the cited references'
18
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
combinability. Rather, as noted above, the obviousness issue in this appeal
turns solely on the Examiner's reliance on Lorch for teaching the recited
proposal propagation and concurrent agreement steps. Therefore, we
confine our discussion to Lorch.
Turning to claim 15, a key aspect of the claimed invention is that two
distinct proposals are propagated to different replicators to enable both
recipient replicators to coordinate to maintain the first and second replicated
repositories' synchronization with each other in real time. Notably, the
claimed invention enables reaching concurrent agreements on the received
proposals, such that the first replicated state machine can reach agreement
on the first proposal concurrently with the second replicated state machine
reaching agreement on the second proposal.
Given these particular proposal propagation schemes and specific
temporal requirements that establish real-time repository synchronization,
we find the Examiner's reliance on Lorch problematic in this regard. As
Lorch's paragraph 55 explains, Lorch uses a state-machine approach to
synchronize devices 11-15 of a distributed computing system in Figure 1 by
agreeing on (1) the functions to be performed, and (2) their order of
performance. To this end, a "Paxos" algorithm is used where a quorum of
devices must agree to a function before it is performed. Lorch ,i,i 55, 7, 29
(noting that other devices within the computing system vote on a proposal
received from the leader device). As shown in Figure 3, each device
301-304 runs an agreement module (AM) 306 that coordinates with other
AMs to choose an operation for each slot in the state machine. Id. ,i 56. To
this end, the algorithm allows one replica to be a "leader," and allows only
the leader to propose operations selectable for a slot. Id. ,i,i 7, 57. That is, a
19
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
single leader proposes all operations to be performed by the state machine
during a particular view, 12 and each replica will accept proposals only from
that view's leader. Id. ,i 58.
The clear import of this functionality is that although any device in
Lorch can be a "leader" that issues operation-based proposals for other
devices to vote on, there can be only one such leader at a time-not two-as
Appellants indicate. Br. 49-50. Given this constraint, we fail to see-nor
has the Examiner shown-how two distinct proposals are propagated to
different replicators in Lorch to enable both recipient replicators to
coordinate to maintain the first and second replicated repositories'
synchronization with each other in real time as claimed. Nor do we see how
Lorch's single-leader-based approach enables reaching concurrent
agreements on received proposals, such that the first replicated state machine
can reach agreement on the first proposal concurrently with the second
replicated state machine reaching agreement on the second proposal as
claimed. Because a single leader in Lorch propagates one proposal at a time
to other devices for voting, Lorch's system, at best, enables serial agreement
on different propagated proposals-not concurrent agreement.
To be sure, Lorch's paragraph 68 notes that, in connection with a
modified Paxos algorithm where each view is replica-set-specific, each
device can run a separate AM that can operate independently and
concurrently as the Examiner indicates. Final Act. 23; Ans. 14-15. But
despite this concurrent AM operation, we cannot say-nor has the Examiner
shown-that Lorch's system enables reaching concurrent agreements on the
12 A "view" in Lorch's parlance is a leader's "term of office," and each view
is identified separately by an associated identifier. Lorch ,i 58.
20
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
particular received proposals recited in claim 15, such that the first
replicated state machine can reach agreement on the first proposal
concurrently with the second replicated state machine reaching agreement on
the second proposal. Notably, this recited functionality enables both
recipient replicators to coordinate to maintain the first and second replicated
repositories' synchronization with each other in real time. Whether Lorch's
AMs under the modified Paxos algorithm provide this real-time coordination
given their concurrent operation in paragraph 68, we cannot say given
Lorch's limited disclosure in this regard. Nor will we speculate in this
regard here in the first instance on appeal. What we can say, however, is
that the Examiner's findings in this regard are insufficient on this record.
Nor does Gamache cure this deficiency.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
(1) independent claim 15; (2) independent claim 44 that recites
commensurate concurrent agreement limitations; and (3) the dependent
claims for similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our
reversing the Examiner's rejection of these claims, we need not address
Appellants' other associated arguments.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15-20 and 24-49 under
§§ 101 and 103.
21
Appeal 2018-003624
Application 12/069,986
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 15-20 and 24-49.
REVERSED
22