Ex Parte Akulavenkatavara et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 3, 2016

13886111 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/886, 111 05/02/2013
63675 7590 06/07/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL
24 Greenway Plaza
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046-2472
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Prasadarao Akulavenkatavara
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.
SVL920110078US2 5013
EXAMINER
ALMAN!, MOHSEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2016 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):
P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRASADARAO AKULA VENKA TA VARA,
AARON I. RENNER, GARY N. JIN, and STEVEN R. PEARSON
Appeal 2016-003661 1
Application 13/886,111
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1---6, which are all of the claims
pending in this appeal. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a computer-implemented method
for determining whether a standby database is synchronized with a primary
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation. Br. 3
Appeal2016-003661
Application 13/886, 111
database. See Abstract. The method includes causing a replication manager
510 to select a set of pages in the primary database and generate checksum
values for each page, which the replication manager 510 compares with a
respective checksum value calculated from a corresponding page in the
standby database to verify synchronization. Spec. i-f 39.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
by operation of one or more computer processors,
determining whether a standby database is synchronized with a
primary database during a log-shipping replication process
therebetween, comprising:
receiving a transaction log at the standby database from
the primary database, the transaction log specifying a first one
or more page checksum values for a physical data of a first set
of pages on the primary database;
computing a second one or more page checksum values
for a physical data of a second set of pages on the standby
database, wherein each page of the second set of pages from the
standby database corresponds to a page in the primary database,
wherein each of the one or more page checksum values for
the first and second sets of pages is computed based on a
physical data on a storage medium representing a respective
page of the first and second sets of pages; and
comparing each of the first one or more page checksum
values against each of the corresponding second one or more
page checksum values to determine, without having to halt a
log replay of the log-shipping physical replication process
between the primary database and the standby database,
whether the standby database is synchronized with the primary
database.
2
Appeal2016-003661
Application 13/886, 111
Watanabe et al.
("Watanabe")
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2008/0208923 Al Aug.28,2008
Polyzois et al., Evaluation of Remote Backup Algorithms for Transaction-
Processing Systems, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 19, No.
3, pp. 423--49, Sept. 1994.
("Polyzois")
Rejections on Appeal
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 1---6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-12 of copending
Application No. 13/360,962. Final Act. 2-3.
Claims 1--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Watanabe. Final Act. 3---6.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Watanabe and Polyzois. Final Act. 6-
9.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7-11. 2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 22, 2015), the Answer (mailed
November 2, 2015), the Final Office Action (mailed February 23, 2015), and
the original Specification (filed May 2, 2013) for the respective details. We
have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually
3
Appeal2016-003661
Application 13/886, 111
Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection
The Examiner has provisionally rejected claims 1-6 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-12 of
copending Application No. 13/360,962. Final Act. 2-3.
Appellants present no arguments pertaining to this ground of
rejection; we, therefore, summarily sustain this rejection. 3
Anticipation Rejection
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in
finding Watanabe discloses
the transaction log specifying a first one or more page checksum
values for a physical data of a first set of pages on the primary
database; computing a second one or more page checksum values
for a physical data of a second set of pages on the standby
database, . . . wherein each of the one or more page checksum
values for the first and second sets of pages is computed based
on a physical data on a storage medium representing a respective
page of the first and second sets of pages,
as recited in claim 1 ?
Appellants argue Watanabe does not describe computing page
checksum values for physical data on a storage medium. Br. 7. In
raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3 See MPEP § 1205.02, 9th ed., Rev. 7, Nov. 2015 ("If a ground of rejection
stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, appellant has
waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may
summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the
rejection in the examiner's answer.").
4
Appeal2016-003661
Application 13/886, 111
particular, Appellants contend Watanabe discloses verifying data without
depending on the storage positions of the data to exclude computing page
checksum values. Br. 7 (citing Watanabe i-f 10). Appellants further assert
page checksum values must reflect the storage position of the physical data
on the storage medium. Br. 7. Appellants moreover contend Watanabe
describes solely calculating the checksum of the result of the execution of a
structured query language (SQL) statement, not of "physical data on a
storage medium representing a respective page of the first and second sets of
pages" of a "primary" or "standby" database, as recited in the claim. Br. 7-9
(citing Watanabe Fig. 14, i-fi-157, 62, 77).
These arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note the first
argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not
recite that the checksum is dependent on the storage position of the physical
data on the storage medium. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Watanabe
discloses the data storage area as physical storage areas of both the primary
system and the secondary system. See Ans. 4--5 (quoting Watanabe i-fi-1 13-
15) (emphasis omitted). Further, the Examiner correctly finds Watanabe
describes calculating checksum values of pages in the physical data storage
area. See id. The Examiner also finds Watanabe discloses the data storage
area is split up into areas of a given size, referred to as pages. See Ans. 5---6
( quoting Watanabe i-fi-1 48--49) (emphasis omitted). We thus agree with the
Examiner that Watanabe describes physical storage areas in the primary and
secondary systems as pages from which checksum values are calculated.
Ans. 5. The Examiner also finds Watanabe discloses calculating the
checksums of individual pages and tabulating the checksum values, each
with corresponding page number, in a data check log. Ans. 6-7 (citing
5
Appeal2016-003661
Application 13/886, 111
Watanabe Fig. 13 ). The Examiner additionally finds Watanabe describes
calculating the checksum values of results of SQL statements as a separate,
independent operation of calculating page checksum values. Ans. 7 (citing
Watanabe i-fi-177-78). This finding contradicts Appellants' argument that
Watanabe describes solely calculating checksum values of SQL results. Br.
7-9.
Appellants argue Watanabe does not describe "to determine, without
having to halt a log replay of the log-shipping physical replication process
between the primary database and the standby database, whether the standby
database is synchronized with the primary database," as recited in claim 1.
Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants contend Watanabe describes computing
checksums of logical data. Br. 9 (citing Watanabe i-fi-1 4--5). The Examiner
finds, and we agree Watanabe discloses transferring the update log of the
primary system to the secondary system. Final Act. 5 (quoting Watanabe i1
4). Further, the Examiner correctly finds Watanabe describes checking the
checksums of the data of the primary system with the checksums of the
backup data of the secondary system to verify data consistency. Final Act. 5
(citing Watanabe i15). We echo the Examiner's finding that Watanabe
discloses checking the data consistency after the update log has been
transferred, without halting, from the primary system to the secondary
system. Final Act. 5. Watanabe describes that the transfer of the update log
is not halted in checking the data consistency between the databases in
determining whether they are synchronized. Watanabe i-fi-14--5 ("After
starting the backup, the data update log of the primary system is transferred
to the secondary system."; "When verifying the consistency of the data of
both systems, a checksum of the data of the primary system and a checksum
6
Appeal2016-003661
Application 13/886, 111
of the backup data of the secondary system are checked."). It follows
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2--4, because Appellants have either
not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments (Br. 9) as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2--4 fall therewith. See 3 7 C.F .R. §
41.37( c )(1)(iv)(2013).
Obviousness Rejection
Regarding the rejection of claims 5 and 6, because Appellants have
either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments (Br. 10-11) as those previously discussed
for patentability of claim 1 above, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6
for the foregoing reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6 as set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED
7