Ex Parte Antani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2017

11876953 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/876,953 10/23/2007 Snehal S. Antani RSW920060220US1_8134-0158 7132
73109 7590 09/25/2017
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, EL 33498
EXAMINER
SHANMUGASUNDARAM, KANNAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SNEHAL S. ANTANI, SOLOMAN J. BARGHOUTHI,
MOHAMMAD N. FAKHAR, SAJAN SANKARAN, and
HARI SHANKAR
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,9531
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 3—9, and 11—17. Appellants have canceled claims 2 and 10.
Amend. 2, 5 (filed Nov. 5, 2014). We have jurisdiction over the remaining
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify IBM Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention relates to customized roll
back strategies for databases when a transaction (i.e., client or application) is
requesting access to a database resource that is locked by a different
transaction. Spec. 1—5. The Specification defines a “deadlock” situation
as one in which “two or more competing clients are each waiting for another
to release a resource.” Spec. 12. According to the Specification, when a
deadlock situation is detected, one transaction (i.e., client) is selected over
the others and is allowed to maintain processing, whereas the non-selected
transactions are “rolled back” such that the resources affected revert back to
the point they were at prior to the start of the aborted transactions. Spec. 13.
Rather than determining which client to select in a deadlock situation based
on which transaction requires the least overhead to roll back (see Spec. 14),
a predetermined roll back strategy may be specified, or derived from,
transaction metadata. Spec. 1 5.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics'.
1. A method of implementing database deadlock resolution
using custom roll back strategies comprising:
identifying a first transaction with a database;
identifying a second transaction with said database;
detecting a deadlock between said first and second
transactions with respect to said database;
resolving said deadlock based upon a predetermined roll
back strategy associated with at least one of said first or second
transactions to identify a preferred one of said first and second
transactions for continued database processing and to select a
remainder one of said first and second transactions for roll back;
2
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
specifying said roll back strategy in transaction metadata',
and
conveying a request to roll back said selected remainder
one of said first and second transactions, wherein said preferred
one of said first and second transactions can continue processing.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Iba et al. (US 5,835,766;
Nov. 10, 1998) (“Iba”). Final Act. 2-8.
2. Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Iba and Welch et al. (US 6,947,952 Bl; Sept. 20,
2005) (“Welch”). Final Act. 8-10.
3. Claims 6 and 15 as being unpatentable over Iba and Srivastava
et al. (US 2003/0028638 Al; Feb. 6, 2003) (“Srivastava”). Final Act. 11-
12.
4. Claims 8 and 17 as being unpatentable over Iba and Moore et
al. (US 2007/0061487 Al; Mar. 15, 2007) (“Moore”). Final Act. 13-15.
ANALYSIS2
Prior Appeal
On October 8, 2010, Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal3 regarding
the Examiner’s rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
February 3, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed August 13, 2015
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 19, 2015 (“Ans.”); and
the Final Office Action, mailed December 4, 2014 (“Final Act.”), from
which this Appeal is taken.
3 Appeal No. 2011-009003, decided February 6, 2014 (“Decision”).
3
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
being anticipated by Srivastava. Srivastava discloses the use of a flag
(CAN-BE-VICTIM) for use in determining, during a deadlock situation,
whether a deadlocked candidate may be aborted (i.e., selected as a victim) in
order to resolve the deadlock. Srivastava Tflf 28—29. Srivastava further
discloses that the “CAN-BE-VICTIM flags could be associated with, among
other things, processes, transactions, or resources.” Srivastava 145. At
issue was whether Srivastava disclosed (expressly or inherently) specifying a
transaction roll back strategy in transaction metadata. The Board reversed
the Examiner’s rejection, finding Srivastava did not disclose the manner in
which Srivastava’s CAN-BE-VICTIM flag was associated with its
transaction was by specifying the flag in transaction metadata. Decision 7.
In the instant Appeal, Appellants suggest, inter alia, the Board
adopted Appellants’ proposed construction for “transaction metadata.” See
App. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants state:
As noted by the Board[,] . . . Appellants have established “that
‘in the field of transactional database management system[s,] a
transaction is understood to be a logical unit of work to be
performed against a database and . . . such a transaction can
include commands and metadata.’” Appellants have further
established “that ‘transaction metadata’ means that ‘the roll back
strategy is actually part of the instructions contained within the
transaction itself (which is made up of commands and
metadata).”’
App. Br. 9 (quoting Decision 3; emphasis added). Contrary to Appellants’
implication, the Board neither adopted Appellants’ proposed construction of
“transaction metadata,” nor did the Board expressly construe “transaction
metadata.” Rather, the Board held the Examiner’s position that “‘Srivastava
discloses specifying roll back strategy in transaction metadata’” was not
4
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Decision 6. In other words,
Srivastava’s CAN-BE-VICTIM flag was not in transaction metadata.
Independent claims 1 and 9
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Iba discloses, inter alia,
resolving a deadlock situation based upon a predetermined roll back strategy
associated with at least one of the deadlocked transactions by using a global
transaction identifier. Final Act. 3 (citing Iba, col. 12,11. 25—34). In
particular, the Examiner finds by including priority information as part of a
global transaction identifier, Iba discloses the predetermined roll back
strategy is specified in transaction metadata. Final Act. 3 (citing Iba, col. 12,
11. 25—34); see also Iba, Fig. 13 A.
Appellants assert that, similar to Srivastava, Iba fails to disclose
(expressly or inherently) how the global identifier is associated with the
transaction. App. Br. 8—11; Reply Br. 2-4. In particular, Appellants
contend Iba describes a Transaction Manager allocates an identifier to a
global transaction uniquely so as to manage global transactions. App. Br. 9
(quoting Iba, col. 8,1. 66—col. 9,1. 4). Thus, Appellants argue the allocation
of an identifier does not disclose that the roll back strategy is specified in or
derived from transaction metadata, as claimed. App. Br. 9—10. Further,
Appellants assert the Examiner has not demonstrated that an ordinarily-
skilled artisan would understand that Iba’s allocation of an identifier to a
global transaction necessarily discloses that the roll back strategy is
specified in or derived from transaction metadata. App. Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner explains Iba discloses the global transaction
identifier has a structure comprising a transaction classification portion and a
5
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
transaction counter portion. Ans. 3 (citing Iba, col. 12,11. 26-45, Fig. 13A).
Iba further discloses “[t]he counter is a unique counter within global
transactions.” Iba, col. 12,11. 42-43. Also, the Examiner explains that in the
previous appeal, as well as the instant appeal, Appellants have stated that by
specifying the roll back strategy in transaction metadata, “the roll back
strategy is actually part of the instructions contained within the transaction
itself.” Ans. 2 (citing Decision 3; App. Br. 8). Thus, the Examiner finds
that because “the counter is part of the priority information [(i.e., part of the
global transaction identifier)] and is explicitly stated to be ‘within global
transactions,’” Iba discloses the feature that the roll back strategy is
specified in or derived from transaction metadata. Ans. 3.
Appellants further respond to the Iba’s disclosure that the transaction
counter is within global transactions. Reply Br. 3^4.
When considered in light of the entirety of Iba’s disclosure, it is
clear that Iba’s statement regarding the transaction counter being
“a unique counter within global transactions” simply indicates
that (1) a unique counter is allocated to each global transaction
based on the order in which the transactions are generated (e.g.,
the transaction manager “allocates an identifier to a global
transaction uniquely so as to manage global transactions” . . .);
and (2) these unique counters identify and differentiate the
transactions, which then allows the system to select a specific
transaction from within a group of waiting transactions in order
to resolve a deadlock.
Reply Br. 3^4 (internal citations omitted; see Iba, col. 8,1. 66—col. 9,1. 4,
col. 12,11. 46—66). Thus, Appellants assert, Iba fails to expressly disclose
the global transaction identifier is part of the transaction itself or the
transaction metadata, but is merely a piece of data associated with (i.e.,
allocated) transactions. Reply Br. 4. Additionally, Appellants contend it
does not necessarily follow that the global transaction identifiers of Iba are
6
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
included as part of the transaction instruction or transaction metadata. Reply
Br. 4.
When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the
Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, reading claim language in light of the
Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We are mindful, however, that limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a
broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant
or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term
“must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from
common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the
field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133
F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Absent an express intent to impart a novel
meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary
meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-
Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(citation omitted).
Here, Appellants’ Specification does not provide a definition or other
special meaning to the claim term “transaction metadata.” Accordingly, we
construe the term as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art. Metadata is data that provides information about other data. See
Microsoft® Computer Dictionary 425 (5th ed. 2002) (defining
7
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
metadata as “[d]ata about data”). Thus, transaction metadata is data that
provides information about the transaction.
Iba discloses a Transaction Manager “allocates an identifier to a
global transaction [(i.e., a global transaction identifier)] uniquely so as to
manage global transactions.” Iba, col. 9,11. 3^4. Iba further discloses the
global transaction identifier comprises a priority portion. Iba, col. 12,11. 26—
27 (“a priority portion [is] provided inside a global transaction identifier”).
Additionally, Iba describes the priority portion as having two standards (i.e.,
parts)—a first standard depends upon a “predetermined classification” of the
transaction and the second standard is a transaction counter (“a unique
counter within global transactions”). Iba, col. 12,11. 35—45. When a
deadlock situation occurs, the transaction to be canceled (i.e., rolled back) is
selected based on the contents of the global transaction identifier,
particularly the priority portion. Iba, col. 12,11. 26—67; see also Iba,
Figs. 13A, 13B.
Because the global transaction identifier provides information (i.e.,
data) about the transaction (e.g., its predetermined classification and a
counter allocated in the order in which the transaction was generated), Iba’s
global transaction identifier is transaction metadata. Additionally, as the
Examiner finds, the priority portion is included within the global transaction
identifier and is used to specify the roll back strategy. See Ans. 3; see also
Iba, col. 12,11. 26—67. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Iba
discloses that the roll back strategy is specified in, or may be derived from,
the transaction metadata.
Appellants additionally contend because Iba allocates the global
transaction identifier after the transaction has been started, the priority
8
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
portion in the global transaction identifier does not disclose a
“predetermined roll back strategy.” App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5. Although
Appellants concede “Iba’s roll back strategy may be ‘predetermined’ in that
the strategy may be formulated based on preexisting rules,” Appellants argue
Iba fails to disclose a predetermined roll back strategy that is specified in or
derived from transaction metadata. Reply Br. 5.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of error. As the
Examiner finds, and as discussed above, Iba discloses the priority portion of
the global transaction identifier further comprises two standards (i.e.,
portions), wherein the first standard “depends upon the predetermined
classification of a transaction.” Iba, col. 12,11. 37—39 (emphasis added); see
also Ans. 4—5. Iba discloses first standard (i.e., the predetermined
classification) is used to resolve a deadlock situation and is set at the time of
starting a global transaction. Iba, col. 12,11. 46—67, Fig. 13B.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 9, which recites similar limitations and was collectively
argued with claim 1. See App. Br. 8—11.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, and 16
Regarding dependent claims 3,11, and 12, Appellants generally rely
on the arguments advanced regarding independent claims 1 and 9, recite the
additional limitations of the claims, and assert Iba fails to disclose the recited
limitation(s). See App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 5—6.
9
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive of Examiner error
because 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) requires more substantive arguments in
an Appeal Brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.
See In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Additionally, it is
well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which
are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
3,11, and 12. Further, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5,
7, 14, and 16, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 12.
Dependent claims 4 and 13
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites “specifying said roll back
strategy in metadata using an applications programming interface.” Claim
13 depends from claim 9 and recites a commensurate limitation.
Appellants assert that Welch fails to remedy the deficiencies alleged
with the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 9. App. Br. 12.
For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1 and 9, there are no
deficiencies with the rejection of claims 1 and 9 for Welch to remedy.
Appellants also assert the Examiner fails to provide a specific
reference within Welch as teaching the transfer of roll back information
using an application programming interface (API). App. Br. 13; Reply
Br. 7. Additionally, although Appellants acknowledge Welch’s rollback
“appears to relate to a conventional process of using an API [(application
programming interface)] to issue a command to terminate ongoing
10
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
transactions,” Appellants contend the combination of Iba and Welch fails to
teach or suggest a predetermined roll back strategy specified in or derived
from transaction metadata, as recited in independent claims 1 and 9, is
specified in the transaction metadata by the applications programming
interface. App. Br. 14.
As an initial matter, we note the Examiner identifies column 9 lines
50 through 64 of Welch to teach transferring roll back information using an
API. Final Act. 8.
Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination
of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because the Examiner relies on
the combined teachings of Iba and Welch in rejecting claims 4 and 13. Final
Act. 8—10. In particular, and as discussed above, the Examiner finds (and
we agree) Iba discloses a predetermined roll back strategy specified in or
derived from transaction metadata. We also note Iba discloses the
predetermined classification of the priority portion of the global transaction
identifier “can be set at any time by a user.” Iba, col. 12,1. 39.
Additionally, the Examiner finds replacing the method of specifying roll
back strategy in Iba with the API of Welch would be a simple substitution to
obtain predictable results. Final Act. 9; Ans. 7. Further, Appellants have
not provided sufficient persuasive evidence that combining transferring of
11
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
roll back information using an API, as taught by Welch with the
predetermined roll back strategy specified in or derived from transaction
metadata of Iba would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one
of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 420 (2007)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 13.
Dependent claims 6 and 15
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites, in relevant part, that
resolving the deadlock situation further comprises “considering the number
of locks associated with each of said first and second transactions if said
deadlock cannot be resolved based upon said first and second roll back
strategies.” Claim 15 recites a commensurate limitation.
Appellants assert that Srivastava fails to remedy the deficiencies
alleged with the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 9. App.
Br. 14—15. For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1 and 9,
there are no deficiencies with the rejection of claims 1 and 9 for Srivastava
to remedy.
Appellants also contend that rather than teaching considering the
number of locks associated with the first and second transactions in a
deadlocked situation, Srivastava is directed to determining the priority of a
resource (i.e., not a transaction). App. Br. 15—17; Reply Br. 8—9.
Appellants concede Srivastava discloses the CAN-BE-VICTIM flag “may
be associated with a resource or an entity,” but asserts Srivastava’s examples
addressing victim resources or victim entities is significant in that Srivastava
12
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
does not teach resolving a deadlock situation by determining a victim
transaction. App. Br. 16—17.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.
Srivastava expressly contemplates a victim entity may be a transaction.
Srivastava 1 6 (“when the victim entity is a transaction, . . .”). Further,
Srivastava discloses the CAN-BE-VICTIM flag “could be associated with
among other things, processes transactions, or resources.” Srivastava 145;
see also Srivastava 165 (describing establishing priority if the possessory
entity is a transaction).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The Examiner finds, and we agree,
[b]oth Iba and Srivastava use methods of resolving deadlocks.
One could use the method of using the number of locks in
Srivastava in addition to the methods in Iba to teach the claimed
invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of invention to combine the method of
resolution in Iba with the method of resolving deadlocks by
considering the number of locks in Srivastava in order to
consider the varying and updating nature of the usage of
transactions.
Final Act. 11—12 (citing Srivastava 49-51).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 15.
Dependent claims 8 and 17
Appellants assert that Moore fails to remedy the deficiencies alleged
with the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 9. App. Br. 17—
13
Appeal 2015-007535
Application 11/876,953
18. For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1 and 9, there are
no deficiencies with the rejection of claims 1 and 9 for Moore to remedy.
Additionally, Appellants contend the combination of Iba and Moore,
as relied on by the Examiner, “fails to teach or suggest that the
predetermined roll back strategy, which is specified in or derived from
transaction metadata, includes, ‘multiple priorities so as to identify a
preferred one transaction to maintain priority to access said database.’”
App. Br. 18. Appellants do not provide any substantive evidence or
persuasive argument to support this conclusory assertion. App. Br. 18.
Thus, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357;
Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—9, and 11—
17.
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(f).
AFFIRMED
14