Ex parte BOWEN et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 9, 1998

08171266 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 21, 1993. 1
According to appellants, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/630,557, filed December 20, 1990, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte THOMAS F. BOWEN and WILLIAM H. MANSFIELD
__________
Appeal No. 95-3872
Application No. 08/171,2661
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 8, 9 and 11 through 18, all of the claims pending in the
application.
The invention is directed to a method for updating database
values without the use of locking operations. While locking
operations employed by the prior art maintained consistency of
Appeal No. 95-3872
Application No. 08/171,266
2
data values from one transaction to another, a desirable feature
also achieved by the instant invention, the prior locking
operations, by locking away data values involved in a current
transaction, also made the data values inaccessible for
processing by another transaction. Thus, serialization delays
resulted as transactions queued up to gain access to certain data
values. Through the use of an aggregation system, without the
use of locking operations, the instant invention is said to
achieve both consistency of data values and the ability to
concurrently read and update a specific data value in different
transactions.
Representative independent claim 8 is reproduced as follows:
8. A method of using an aggregation system, having memory
means for storing a plurality of data values, to read data values
and to perform concurrent updates of data values such that access
to each data value for reading and concurrently updating each
data value is maintained, the method comprising the steps of
storing in the memory means a first relation comprising, for
each of a plurality of numeric data values, a base value and a
time-stamp indicating when the base value was computed,
storing in the memory means a second relation comprising,
for each of said numeric data values, one or more incremental
updates and a time-stamp for each incremental update,
reading a specific numeric data value by
electronically retrieving from the first relation in
the memory means a base value of said specific numeric data
value,
Appeal No. 95-3872
Application No. 08/171,266
3
electronically retrieving from the second relation in
the memory means incremental updates associated with the specific
numeric data value having a time-stamp which is later than the
time-stamp of said base value of said specific numeric data
value, and
utilizing electronic processing means to aggregate the
retrieved base value and incremental updates, and
performing concurrent updates of said specific numeric data
value by
receiving at said processing means other incremental
updates associated with said specific numeric data value from a
computer which processes database transactions, and
writing said other incremental updates into said second
relation in the memory means.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Gausmann et al. (Gaussmann) 5,230,073 Jul. 20, 1993
(filed Jun. 6, 1989)
Rochkind, “The Source Code Control System,” IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering, Vol. SE-1, No. 4 (December 1975) pp. 364-
370.
Katz et al. (Katz), “Database Support for Versions and
Alternatives of Large Design Files,” IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering, Vol. SE-10, No. 2 (March 1984) pp. 191-200.
Claims 8, 9 and 11 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites Rochkind
with regard to claims 8, 11 and 14 through 18, adding Gausmann
Appeal No. 95-3872
Application No. 08/171,266
The examiner never explicitly includes a statement in the2
answer regarding the grounds of rejection against claims 12 and
13 but it is clear from the final rejection, answer and
appellants’ brief that these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103 over Rochkind and Katz.
4
with regard to claim 9 and citing Rochkind and Katz with regard
to claims 12 and 13. 2
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants’ arguments
set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be reversed
because the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the claimed subject matter.
Appeal No. 95-3872
Application No. 08/171,266
5
Rather than go through the details of each and every
independent claim and the claims dependent therefrom, we note
that each and every claim requires at least, in one form or
another, the reading of data values and performing concurrent
updates of data values in order to maintain access to each data
value for reading and updating. The claimed method also
requires, in one form or another, the storage of a base value and
incremental updates in order to aggregate the base value and
incremental updates.
There is no disagreement between appellants and the examiner
that Rochkind fails to provide for concurrent updating. The
updates are not concurrent in Rochkind because, as Rochkind
explains at page 367, right-hand column, any attempt to add a
delta, or change, in a module is “locked out,” access being
permitted only for read-only purposes.
The whole purpose of the instant invention is to provide an
improvement over the systems employing “lock out” so as to
provide for the ability to concurrently read and update a
specific data value in different transactions. Yet, the
examiner boldly states that even though Rochkind provides for
locking, the very thing appellants want to avoid, the “reference
is implicit evidence that a system without locking was old in the
Appeal No. 95-3872
Application No. 08/171,266
6
art since Rochkind specifically provides for locking, implicitly
recognizing this need over a system without locking...” [answer-
page 9]. This circular and obfuscatory reasoning of the
examiner, i.e., that because a reference teaches something, it
also implicitly teaches the opposite of that something, falls far
short of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness by a
convincing line of reasoning.
Thus, since the changes made in Rochkind are locked out
during updates, Rochkind teaches away from the instant claimed
invention. Neither Katz, which deals with minimizing disk
requirements by storing software versions on-line, nor Gausmann,
which deals with broadcast oriented architecture for a data
storage access system, provides for the deficiencies of Rochkind.
The examiner appears to be giving the claim language a
rather broad interpretation, indicating that appellants’
realization of “consistency” and “concurrency” is achieved by
Rochkind “[t]o the extent disclosed” [answer-page 15] and that
“to the extent disclosed and claimed...the examiner’s reading of
Rochkind is not a stretching of the reference...” [answer-page
17]. It is our view that the examiner’s interpretation of the
claim language, and it is not entirely clear what that
interpretation is, is unreasonably broad since the claims are
Appeal No. 95-3872
Application No. 08/171,266
7
very specific as to the concurrent updates of data values and as
to the aggregation of a base value and incremental updates,
features which are clearly not taught or suggested by Rochkind,
or either of the other applied references.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8, 9 and 11 through
18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 95-3872
Application No. 08/171,266
8
Loria B. Yeadon, Esq.
Bell Communications Research, Inc.
445 South Street - Room 1G112R
Morristown, NJ 07960