Ex Parte Bangel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2018

12101518 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018)

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.
12/101,518 04/11/2008 Matthew J. Bangel END920060313US1 8386
45092 7590 03/01/2018
HOFFMAN WARNTOK T T C
EXAMINER
540 Broadway
4th Floor
HU, JENSEN
ALBANY, NY 12207 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2018 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):
PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW J. BANGEL, JAMES A. MARTIN JR. and
DOUGLAS G. MURRAY
Appeal 2017-006258
Application 12/101,518
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
1 International Business Machines Corporation is the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 1.
Appeal 2017-006258
Application 12/101,518
Introduction
The invention is directed to managing database agents by producing a
predetermined number of replica databases for running agents wherein
agents are program snippets employed to perform specific tasks on a
database. Specification paragraphs 2-5.
Illustrative Claim
1. A system for managing database agents, comprising:
at least one computer device, having:
a database replicator for producing a number of replica
databases based on an original database, all of the original
database and the replica databases being configured to have
agents run on replicated data thereof;
an agent scheduling document that includes:
an identifier for an agent to be scheduled;
a primary database upon which the agent is to be run, the
primary database being at least one of the original database or
one of the replica databases; and
a prerequisite that must be satisfied before the agent is
run; and
a scheduling server including a parser for parsing the
agent scheduling document, the parser for the agent scheduling
document:
determining, based on the prerequisite, whether the agent
specified by the identifier is ready to be run and determining
whether the primary database of the agent scheduling document
is operational, and:
in a case that a determination is made that the agent is
ready to be run, forwarding the agent for running on the
primary database,
2
Appeal 2017-006258
Application 12/101,518
wherein the scheduling server allows the agent to run on
the replicated data on one of the replica databases while another
agent is simultaneously performing a task on a different one of
the replica databases.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20-22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 (a) as being unpatentable over Bangel (US Patent Application
Publication 2003/0212715 Al; published November 13, 2003), Highleyman
(US Patent Application Publication 2003/0172106 Al; published September
11, 2003) and Derk (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0129615 Al;
published June 15,2006). Answer 2-11.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bangel, Highleyman and Eichstaedt (US Patent
Application Publication 2008/0098014 Al; published April 24, 2008).
Answer 11.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 4, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
January 30, 2017), the Final Action (mailed March 17, 2016) and the
Answer (mailed November 28, 2016) for the respective details.
Appellants contend that Derk fails to overcome Bangel’s deficiency of
failing to disclose “determining whether the primary database of the agent
scheduling document is operational” and Highleyman fails to overcome
Bangel’s deficiency of failing to disclose “wherein the scheduling server
allows the agent to run on the replicated data on one of the replica databases
3
Appeal 2017-006258
Application 12/101,518
while another agent is simultaneously performing a task on a different one of
the replica databases.” Appeal Brief 8.
We observe that the conditional limitation recited in claim 1 only
requires forwarding the agent to run on the primary database when it is
determined that the primary database is operational. If the primary database
is not operational, the agent is not sent to the primary database and
scheduling server is consequently not engaged. However, because claim 1 is
a system claim, in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, it is
still required that the prior art discloses structure to perform the tasks should
the condition occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL
6277792, at *7 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding “[t]he
broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that
performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is
met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition
occur.”). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that the Bangel/Derk
combination discloses the structure needed to perform the conditional tasks
should the condition be met. See Final Action 2-4.
Appellants argue that there is not a parser or similar feature in Derk
performing “allegedly related tasks.” Appeal Brief 9. Appellants further
argue “Derk states that the backup server performs all of the
tasks (Derk, Para. 19), thus teaching away from Appellants’ claimed
invention.” Appeal Brief 9. We do not find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive because Appellants fail to explain why Derk teaches away from
the invention. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
4
Appeal 2017-006258
Application 12/101,518
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
The Examiner finds Bangel determines whether the identified agent is
ready to run and relies upon Derk’s paragraph 18 and Figure 4 (described in
paragraph 18) to support the finding that Derk determines if the agent
scheduling document is operational. Final Action 4-5. Appellants do not
argue the validity of the Examiner’s findings instead choosing to direct
arguments at paragraph 19 of Derk. Appeal Brief 9. We find the Examiner
established a prima facie case of obviousness. If the Examiner’s burden to
establish a prima facie case of unpatentability is met, the burden then shifts
to the Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a
whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, Appellants do not provide
persuasive evidence or argument to overcome the Examiner’s prima facie
case, in particular, the Examiner’s findings regarding paragraph 18 and
Figure 4 of Derk. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as, claims 2-22 not argued
separately. See Appeal Brief 8, 10.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-22 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
5