Ex Parte Agarwal et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 30, 2009

10260805 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANURAG AGARWAL and HAROLD B. PRINCE, JR.
____________________

Appeal 2009-008979
Application 10/260,805
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: October 30, 2009
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAY P. LUCAS, and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-16 and
20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Claims 17-19 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-008979
Application 10/260,805

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “locks for
controlling access to data by nodes in a multimode system,” whereby
“[a]ccess can be granted to a block agent for an entire block or for a portion
of a block of locks” (Spec. 39).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below:

1. A computer-implemented method comprising:

receiving a request for exclusive access to a first set of
data, wherein

the first set of data is associated with a first lock of
a plurality of locks,

a first block comprises the plurality of locks, and

each lock of the plurality of locks in the first block
is associated with a respective set of data;

obtaining exclusive access to the first block; and

granting exclusive access to sets of data associated with
respective locks in the first block, wherein

said granting exclusive access to sets of data
associated with respective locks occurs subsequent to
said obtaining exclusive access to the first block.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal 2009-008979
Application 10/260,805

Chan US 6,751,616 B1 Jun. 15, 2004

Claims 1-16 and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S .C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Chan.
II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Chan
discloses “a first block comprises the plurality of locks” and “obtaining
exclusive access to the first block” (claim 1)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Chan
1) Chan discloses a distributed lock management system that
tracks resource locks being held by database servers (col. 2, ll. 44-48).
2) Before a database server can access a resource, it must obtain a
lock on the resource from the distributed lock management system (col. 2, ll.
34-37).
3) If a database server requests a lock on a resource while another
database server holds a lock on that resource, the distributed lock
management system determines whether the requested lock is consistent
with the held lock and then grants or denies access to the requesting database
server based on that determination (col. 2, ll. 48-53).
3
Appeal 2009-008979
Application 10/260,805

4) Read locks (e.g., for reading a database) can be granted
simultaneously for a single “block of storage” in memory, but exclusive
locks (e.g., for writing to a database) cannot be granted simultaneously for
the same “block of storage” in memory (col. 2, ll. 53-60).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). “[T]he PTO gives
claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999). “In other words, if granting patent protection
on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the public from
practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether
it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.” Id. (citations omitted).

4
Appeal 2009-008979
Application 10/260,805

V. ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, Appellants argue that “all of the portions of
Chan cited as teaching the first block quite clearly fail to teach or suggest a
‘first block’ that ‘comprises multiple locks’ and is a resource to which
exclusive access can be obtained” (App. Br. 11). Appellants further argue
that neither the multiple locks of Chan’s distributed lock management
system nor the multiple locks for accessing a single “block of storage” in
Chan’s memory teach the above features of the “first block” of claim 1
(App. Br. 9-10).
The Examiner apparently finds that the “first block” of claim 1 reads
on the “locks among nodes” of Chan’s distributed lock management system
and, more particularly, reads on multiple locks for accessing a single “block
of storage” in Chan’s memory (Ans. 10-11; citing col. 2, ll. 44-60).
Accordingly, an issue we address on appeal is whether Chan discloses
“a first block comprises the plurality of locks” and “obtaining exclusive
access to the first block” (claim 1).
We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324. Furthermore, our analysis
will not read limitations into the claims from the specification. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
Claim 1 does not place any limitation as to what the “first block” of
locks is to mean, include, or represent. Rather, claim 1 merely recites that
the “first block” comprises a “plurality of locks” each “associated with a
respective set of data.” We therefore interpret the “first block” as being any
entity that comprises a plurality of locks associated with sets of data.
5
Appeal 2009-008979
Application 10/260,805

Claim 1 also does not place any limitation on what “obtaining
exclusive access to the first block” means, includes, or represents. That is,
claim 1 merely requires that the first block is accessed, whether en masse or
merely a portion, one or more locks at a time. Thus, we interpret the
“exclusive access to the first block” to include access to a portion of the first
block and/or access to one lock at a time.
Chan discloses a distributed lock management system that determines
the resource locks held by database servers (FF 1 and 3). More particularly,
before a database server can access a resource shared by other database
servers, it must obtain a corresponding resource lock from the distributed
lock management system (FF 2). The distributed lock management system
determines whether a requested lock can coexist with any granted locks, e.g.,
two read locks can coexist for a single “block of storage” in memory (FF 3-
4). The distributed lock management system thus ensures that an exclusive
lock to a single resource (e.g., a write lock) is held by only one database
server at a time (FF 3-4).
A skilled artisan would have understood that any two resource locks
of Chan form a “first block” comprising a “plurality of locks,” as required
by claim 1. Further, the skilled artisan would have understood the obtaining
of exclusive access to one or both of such any two resource locks of Chan to
be “obtaining exclusive access to the first block,” as required by claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Chan discloses “a first
block comprises the plurality of locks” and “obtaining exclusive access to
the first block” (claim 1). Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not
shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. We therefore affirm the
6
Appeal 2009-008979
Application 10/260,805

rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2-8 falling therewith, under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Chan.
As Appellants do not provide separate arguments for independent
claims 9, 13, and 20, those claims fall with representative claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We therefore also affirm the rejection of claims 9,
13, and 20, and their dependent claims 10-12, 14-16, 21, and 22 falling
therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Chan.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that claims
1-16 and 20-22 are anticipated by Chan.

VII. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16 and 20-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb

CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP
11401 CENTURY OAKS TERRACE
BLDG. H, SUITE 250
AUSTIN, TX 78758
7