Ex Parte Busch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2016

12567464 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/567,464 0912512009
46320 7590 08/18/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Busch
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.
RSW920090083US1 (566) 4386
EXAMINER
VY,HUNGT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2016 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
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL BUSCH, RAJESH M. DESAI,
TOM WILLIAM JACOPI, and
MICHAEL MCCANDLESS
Appeal2015-003111
Application 12/567,464
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, and 13, all the pending
claims in the present application. Claims 3 and 11 are canceled. See Claims
Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to maintaining distributed state
consistency in a distributed computing application. See Spec. i-f 1.
Appeal2015-003111
Application 12/567,464
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for maintaining distributed state
consistency in a distributed computing application, the method
compnsmg:
registering a set of components of a distributed
computing application with a consistency engine;
starting a transaction resulting in changes of state in
different ones of the components in the registered set;
determining in response to a conclusion of the
transaction whether or not an inconsistency of state has arisen
amongst the different components in the registered set in
consequence of the changes of state in the different ones of the
components in the registered set;
directing each of the components in the registered set
to rollback to a previously stored state if an inconsistency has
arisen, but otherwise directing a committal of state in each of the
components in the registered set; and
synchronizing each state for each of the components
in the registered set with a centralized consistency state maintained
by the consistency engine.
Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1
RI. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Broeder (US 2010/0114817 Al, May 6, 2010) (Final
Act. 3-5); and
R2. Claims 4, 5, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Broeder and Sundaram (US 6, 728,922 B 1, Apr.
27, 2004) (id. at 4--5).
1 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Ans.
5).
2
Appeal2015-003111
Application 12/567,464
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Broeder discloses
registering a set of components of a distributed computing application with a
consistency engine, as set forth in the claimed invention?
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding that Broeder discloses registering a set of components of a
distributed computing application with a consistency engine. For example,
the Examiner finds that Broeder's "transaction manager is [the] consistency
engine as claimed ... and audit trails is a set of components of a
distribut[ ed] computing application of claimed invention" (Ans. 5)
(emphasis omitted).
However, as identified by Appellants, "the audit trail in Broeder is a
list of records ... the audit trail only reflects modifications of a database ...
an audit trail cannot be equivalent to Appellants' claimed 'set of
components"' (Reply Br. 5). Specifically, Broeder discloses "[a]n audit trail
is a chronological sequence of audit records each of which contain data
pertaining to and resulting from a database transaction" (see i-f 350). In other
words, Broeder' s audit trail is merely data records written to a database.
Contrary to Broeder's audit trail, in the claimed invention the
"different components 110 of a distributed application 150 can communicate
with one another cooperatively to achieve a function or functions of the
distributed application 150" (see Spec. ,-r 16), "each component can receive
notification of a start of a transaction" (see id. ,-r 17), and "[ e Jach component
240 further must store both the contemporary state 260B and the previous
3
Appeal2015-003111
Application 12/567,464
state 260A" (see id. i120). We find that one of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that the claimed "set of components of a distributed
computing application" would entail more than data records pertaining to,
and resulting from, a database transaction. Here, the Examiner fails to
explain how Broeder's audit trail, i.e., a mere sequence of data records, is a
component of a distributed computing application consistent with
Appellants' Specification.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Broeder's "audit
trail" discloses a set of components of a distributed computing application,
as recited in each of the independent claims. Therefore, Broeder fails to
anticipate the independent claims. The Examiner also has not found that
Sundaram makes up for the deficiencies of Broeder. Because we agree with
at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the
merits of Appellants' other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 10 and the
obviousness rejection of claims 4, 5, 8, 12, and 13.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12, and 13 is
reversed.
REVERSED
4