Ex Parte Bohle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2014

11770090 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2014)

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.
11/770,090 06/28/2007 Holger Bohle 07781.0317-00 5857
60668 7590 08/01/2014
SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
DWIVEDI, MAHESH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte HOLGER BOHLE, MARKO DEGENKOLB,
and RALF HALBEDEL
_____________

Appeal 2012-001235
Application 11/770,090
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001235
Application 11/770,090

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-35.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to methods, computer program products, and
systems for data locking and the selection of a locking strategy. Spec. [001].
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method for dynamically selecting a locking strategy for a
request by a source to access a stored data object in a
computerized system, the method comprising:
receiving, by a locking layer, the request from the source
to access the stored data object;
determining, with the locking layer, the locking strategy
for the request based on a set of locking configuration rules, the
set of locking configuration rules being modifiable by a system
administrator; and
associating the request with the determined locking
strategy, the determined locking strategy comprising a lock
mode specifying a level of exclusivity for the stored data object.

REFERENCES
Goldick US 2003/0093457 A1 May 15, 2003

Eshel US 6,826,570 B1 Nov. 30, 2004

Barsness US 2007/0299814 A1 Dec. 27, 2007
(filed June 22, 2006)

1 Claim 3 was previously cancelled.
Appeal 2012-001235
Application 11/770,090

3

Mullins US 2008/0189240 A1 Aug. 7, 2008
(filed Feb. 5, 2007)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-23, 25-32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Barsness and Goldick.
Ans. 4-55.
Claims 14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Barsness, Goldick, and Mullins. Ans.
56-57.
Claims 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Barsness, Goldick, and Eshel. Ans.
57-60.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Barsness and
Goldick teaches or suggests that the determined locking strategy comprises a
lock mode specifying a level of exclusivity for the stored data object, as
required by claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Barsness and
Goldick teaches or suggests a set of locking configuration rules being
modifiable by a system administrator, as required by claim 1?
Appeal 2012-001235
Application 11/770,090

4
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Barsness and
Goldick teaches or suggests “wherein the set of locking configuration rules
are active during particular time intervals,” as recited in claims 32 and 34?

CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Claim 1 requires that the determined locking strategy comprises a lock
mode that specifies a level of exclusivity for the stored data object. The
Examiner finds Barsness teaches that upon receiving a query request “the
query optimizer 134 may determine whether to use a row level locking
strategy, a page level locking strategy, or a table level locking strategy, prior
to executing a particular database query.” Ans. 61-62 (citing Barsness
[0033]). Further, the Examiner finds that “[i]t is clear that a row level
locking strategy has a level of exclusivity.” Ans. 62.
Appellants argue that Barsness teaches a locking strategy that includes
a lock scope instead of the claimed “lock mode.” App. Br. 15-16. To
demonstrate the difference, Appellants refer to their Specification, which
states that “[l]ock scope . . . identifies which unit or units of stored data are
being locked. . . . [F]or example, the lock scope may be an entire row, table,
page . . .” (citing Spec. [025]); whereas “[a] lock mode is the level of
exclusivity, or type of access to the data object that is obtained with a
particular lock” (citing Spec. [004]). App. Br. 15-16; Rep. Br. 3-5. As such,
Appellants argue that “[i]n Barsness, the locking strategy . . . is always
exclusive,” instead of including “[a] ‘lock mode’ . . . [that] allows for
Appeal 2012-001235
Application 11/770,090

5
different degrees of exclusivity.” App. Br. 16 (citing Barsness [0006])
(emphasis added by Appellants). We disagree with Appellants.
The Examiner finds (Ans. 61-62), and we agree, that the system
taught by Barsness determines a locking strategy that includes a “level of
exclusivity;” i.e., the query that locked the record is the only one that can
access the record. Barsness [0006]. While Appellants are correct that the
locking strategy is, therefore, “always exclusive” (App. Br. 16), there is
nothing in the claims that precludes the strategy from always being the same
as the claim does not require multiple levels of exclusivity.
In addition, Appellants contend that Goldick fails to teach a set of
locking configuration rules being modifiable by a system administrator
because “[c]hanges to locks do not require changes to the rules under which
locking strategies are established.” App. Br. 17 (emphasis added by
Appellants). The Examiner finds that Goldick teaches that “suitably
privileged or authorized principals are allowed to issue a lock or an update-
lock request” and that “the developer may also provide an indication as to
which systems may be authorized.” Ans. 64-65 (citing Goldick [0066]).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that Goldick teaches that if a client has
authority then the client can break (or modify) the existing lock. Ans. 64-65
(citing Goldick [0088]). Thus, the Examiner concludes that the authorized
principals, the developer, and/or the authorized clients satisfy the “system
administrator” limitation; and the modification and/or updating of the lock
by these system administrator(s), such as by performing a lock break (or
modification) by the authorized client, satisfies the “set of locking
Appeal 2012-001235
Application 11/770,090

6
configuration rules being modifiable” limitation. We agree with the
Examiner.
Appellants neither provide, nor can we find in Appellants’
Specification, a specific definition for the terms “system administrator” and
“the set of locking configuration rules.” Therefore, as found by the
Examiner (Ans. 64-65), a broad interpretation of these terms consistent with
Appellants’ Specification includes authorized principals, developers, and/or
authorized clients as “a system administrator” and the ability to update
and/or modify the existing lock demonstrates that the set of configuration
rules of the lock are modifiable.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.

Claims 32 and 34
Claims 32 and 34 recite “wherein the set of locking configuration
rules are active during particular time intervals.” Appellants contend that
modifying and/or updating the lock, as taught by Goldick, is made after the
rules have been applied and therefore “[c]hanging a lock after it has been set
therefore does not disclose or suggest anything about any locking
configuration rules used to create the lock.” App. Br. 18-19 (emphasis
added by Appellants); Rep. Br. 6-7. For the reasons stated supra regarding
claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that Goldick teaches the claimed “set
of locking configuration rules.” The additional language of claims 32 and
34 do not change this analysis.
Appeal 2012-001235
Application 11/770,090

7
In addition, Appellants argue that “regardless of how long any
particular lock is set in Goldick, whether later modified or not, Goldick’s
durations do not disclose or suggest ‘wherein the set of locking
configuration rules are active during particular time intervals.’” App. Br. 19
(emphasis added by Appellants). However, the Examiner finds that Goldick
teaches that for a first time interval the timeout period and/or sharing
capabilities of the lock are active and then after modification of the timeout
period and/or sharing capabilities of the lock, during at least a second time
interval, the rules may be changed and/or updated, but remain active. Ans.
66-67 (citing Goldick [0091]). We agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans.
66-67) that the rules of the lock are active during particular time intervals,
such as during an initial time interval and then after being modified and/or
updated the set of rules are active for a subsequent time interval. Appellants
do not address the Examiner’s particular findings that the underlying rules of
the lock, such as the timeout period and sharing capabilities of the lock, are
active during an initial time interval and then following a modification
and/or update the rules are active for a subsequent time interval.
Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned supra, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 32 and 34.
Appellants make similar arguments with respect to claims 33 and 35
as with claims 32 and 34. App. Br. 19-20; Rep. Br. 7. As such, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 33 and 35 for the reasons indicated supra
with respect to claims 32 and 34.

Appeal 2012-001235
Application 11/770,090

8
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Barsness
and Goldick teaches or suggests that the determined locking strategy
comprises a lock mode specifying a level of exclusivity for the stored data
object, as required by claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Barsness
and Goldick teaches or suggests a set of locking configuration rules being
modifiable by a system administrator, as required by claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Barsness
and Goldick teaches or suggests “wherein the set of locking configuration
rules are active during particular time intervals,” as recited in claims 32 and
34.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4-35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

JRG