Ex Parte Barghouthi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2018

14476696 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/476,696 09/03/2014 Soloman J. Barghouthi
46320 7590 12/18/2018
Shutts & Bowen LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
525 Okeechobee Blvd
# 1100
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
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.
RSW920140032US1 (812) 1473
EXAMINER
ANDERSEN, KRISTOPHER E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2018 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
sgreenberg@shutts.com
aschneider@shutts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte SOLOMAN J. BARGHOUTHI, DANA L. PRICE,
STEPHEN KENNA, and CHARLES LEV A Y
Appeal 2018-004665
Application 14/476,696
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, BETH Z. SHAW,
and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 6-15, which represent all the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
November 20, 2017 ("App. Br."), Reply Brief filed March 30, 2018 ("Reply
Br."), the Specification filed September 3, 2014 ("Spec."), the Examiner's
Answer mailed January 30, 2018 ("Ans."), and the Final Rejection mailed
May 5, 2017 ("Final Act.").
2 Appellants identify International Business Machine Corporation as the real
party in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2018-004665
Application 14/476,696
RELATED APPEALS
This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2018-004706 for related
Application No. 14/708,448.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to database connection management
for multi-tenant environments. Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 6 is illustrative of the claims at issue and is reproduced below:
6. A multi-tenancy data processing system
configured for service level agreement (SLA) cognizant
database connection management, the system comprising:
a host computing system comprising at least one
computer with memory and at least one processor, the host
computing system providing a multi-tenancy computing
environment in which different application instances of a
computing application execute in the memory of the host
computing system;
a database communicatively coupled to the host
computing system;
a connection pool of database connections to the
database, the connection pool comprising different portions,
each portion comprising a selected set of the database
connections; and,
an SLA aware pool management module executing in the
memory of the host computing system, the module comprising
program code enabled upon execution to receive different
requests for data in the database from different ones of the
application instances, to determine a priority for each of the
requests, to select for each of the requests a particular one of the
portions of the database connection pool associated with a
corresponding priority of a corresponding one of each of the
requests, and to process each of the requests through a
respectively selected one of the portions of the database
connection pool.
2
Appeal 2018-004665
Application 14/476,696
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 6-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
allegedly directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 4--7.
The Examiner rejected claims 6-8 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as anticipated by Westerman (US 2015/0127611 Al, published May 7,
2015). Final Act. 7-11.
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Westerman, Saha (US 7,337,226 B2, issued Feb.
26, 2008), and Bhogi (US 8,145,759 B2, issued Mar. 27, 2012). Final Act.
11, 12.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Section 101
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6-15 under
35 U.S.C. § 101. App. Br. 4--9; Reply Br. 2-7. The Examiner concludes the
claims are directed to an abstract idea of "comparing new and stored
information and using rules to identify options." Final Act. 5. The
Examiner concludes that the claims do not include additional elements
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Id.
Appellants argue that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea of
comparing new and stored information. App. Br. 6. Instead, Appellants
argue, the claims are directed to an improvement to the functionality of a
computer. Id. We agree with Appellants.
We conclude that Appellants' claims are patent eligible as directed to
a specific improvement in a technological process (i.e., different requests for
data in the database are received from different application instances in order
to determine a priority for each of the requests). The Federal Circuit has
3
Appeal 2018-004665
Application 14/476,696
approved claims of this general character. See Finjan, Inc. v. Bluecoat Sys.,
Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305---06 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Finjan, the court held
claims patent eligible because they recited specific steps for generating a
security profile that identifies suspicious code and linking it to a
downloadable that accomplished the desired result. Similarly, the claims
here recite specific steps for receiving different requests for data in a
database from different application instances to determine a priority for each
of the requests. Accordingly, the claims at issue are not directed to an
abstract idea. Because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under
step one of the Alice analysis, we need not proceed to step two of that
analysis. The claims here are eligible because they are directed to an
improvement in the functioning of a computer by selecting different requests
for data in the database received from different application instances to
determine a priority for each of the requests.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Anticipation
Appellants argue Westerman is silent as to a "database connection
pool" and silent "on the notion the pool that includes one or more database
connections such that a particular request is chosen to utilize a particular one
of the connections in the pool based upon a common priority." App. Br. 13.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants acknowledge that Westerman does disclose a
"connection pool," but argue this is optionally included in an SLA. Reply
Br. 9. Appellants argue the priority levels of connection pools in Westerman
4
Appeal 2018-004665
Application 14/476,696
are not sufficient to account for "selecting of a particular portion of a
database connection pool." Id. at 9, 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Westerman
discloses, as the Examiner finds, "multiple priority levels of connection
pools per application." Ans. 10 (citing Westerman ,r 42). Additionally,
Westerman discloses that connections "may be prioritized for purposes of
rate limitations, perhaps based on the associated user, the type of
operations(s) requested, and/or other criteria." Id. (citing Westerman ,r 68)
( emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner's findings.
We also agree with the Examiner that Westerman teaches in
paragraph 68 that the particular portion of each of the requests or type of
operation "requested" "may be prioritized." Under the broadest reasonable
construction of the claim, Westerman's disclosure is sufficient to teach
"select for each of the requests a particular one of the portions of the
database connection pool associated with a corresponding priority of a
corresponding one of each of the requests," because prioritizing the
connections for certain requests for a type of operation associates the
requests with a corresponding priority of each of the requests. App. Br. 19-
20.
Appellants argue that the factual determination of anticipation
requires an identical disclosure of each element of a claimed invention in a
single reference. Reply Br. 10. Yet, anticipation "is not an 'ipsissimis
verbis' test." In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing
Akzo N. V. v. United States Int 'l Trade Comm 'n, 808 F .2d 14 71, 14 79 & n.11
(Fed. Cir. 1986)). "An anticipatory reference, ... need not duplicate word
for word what is in the claims." Standard Havens Prods. v.Gencor Indus.,
5
Appeal 2018-004665
Application 14/476,696
953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As discussed above, the Examiner
sufficiently explains how Westerman anticipates the claims.
Therefore, for these reasons, and for the additional reasons stated in
the Final Rejection and Answer, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of
claim 6. We sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 7, 8, and 11-13,
which are not separately argued with particularity. We also sustain the
rejections of claims 9, 10, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because
Appellants present no new or additional arguments for those claims.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6-15 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6-8 and 11-
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9, 10, 14, and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6-15 is
affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6