Ex Parte Cattell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2014

11393163 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RODERIC G. CATTELL and CRAIG L. RUSSELL
____________________

Appeal 2011-009586
Application 11/393,1631
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KEVIN W. CHERRY Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–11, 13–17, and 19–22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Oracle America, Inc.
(Br. 1).
2 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed
November 18, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
February 3, 2011).
Appeal 2011-009586
Application 11/393,163

2
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to computer-implemented
databases, and in particular, to distributed in-memory databases and database
caches” (Spec. 1, ll. 16–17).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method in a data processing system having a
plurality of independent sub data processing systems, the data
processing system including a processor and a memory which
runs a program to manage a database, comprising the steps of:
[1] providing a data store in one of the plurality of sub
processing systems;
[2] providing a plurality of data sub stores which are
distributed over at least two of the plurality of sub data
processing systems and connected to the data store via a
network;
[3] associating a first information with a first
synchronization strategy and a second information with a
second synchronization strategy; wherein the first and second
synchronization strategies are used to synchronize the reading
and writing of the first and second information between the data
store and each of the plurality of data sub stores; and
[4] synchronizing the first information and the second
information between the data store and each of the plurality of
data sub-stores using the first and second synchronization
strategies;
[5] wherein, the first and second synchronization
strategies are automatically selected according to one or more
of the following: the frequency with which the first and second
information is accessed, the type of data represented by the first
and second information, or an algorithm.

Appeal 2011-009586
Application 11/393,163

3
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1, 3, 10, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Zhou (US 2005/0203962 A1, pub. Sept. 15, 2005).3
Claims 2, 4–6, 8, 11, 13–15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhou and Funk (US 2005/0165731 A1,
pub. July 28, 2005).
Claims 7, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhou and Horn (US 7,275,063 B2, iss. Sept. 25, 2007).4

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and dependent claims 3, 21, and 22
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Zhou does
not disclose “synchronizing the first information and the second information
between the data store and each of the plurality of data sub-stores using the
first and second synchronization strategies,” i.e., limitation [4], as recited in
claim 1 (Br. 7–11).

3 We treat, as inadvertent error, the Examiner’s identification of claim 3 as
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Zhou; claim 3 depends from
claim 2, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zhou and Funk.
4 We also treat, as inadvertent error, the Examiner and Appellants’
identification of claim 18 as a rejected claim before us for review (Ans. 13;
Br. 6). This claim is cancelled. See Br. 1 (stating that “[c]laims 12 and 18
have been cancelled”).
Appeal 2011-009586
Application 11/393,163

4
The Examiner directs our attention to paragraphs 56–62 and 151–152
of Zhou as disclosing the argued features (Ans. 5–6 and 15–16). We have
carefully reviewed the portions of Zhou, cited by the Examiner, and we
disagree that Zhou discloses the argued limitation.
The Examiner equates public fragment 202 and private fragment 204
of the mutable data in Zhou to the first and second information, associated
with a respective first and second synchronization strategy, recited in
limitation [3] of claim 1 (see Ans. 4–5 and 15). However, we agree with
Appellants that public fragment 202 and private fragment 204 are not both
synchronized between a server and each of a plurality of clients,
i.e., “between the data store and each of the plurality of data sub-stores using
[respective] first and second synchronization strategies,” as recited in
claim 1’s limitation [4].
Zhou discloses that public mutable data 202 may be shared between
the server replica and a plurality of the client replicas, but Zhou describes
that private data fragments 204 are specific to a client, and as such, only
accessible to one client replica and its respective server replica (Zhou ¶ 56;
see also Fig. 2, element 204). Thus, Zhou only discloses public mutable
data 202 being shared between a server replica and a plurality of client
replicas. Additionally, to the extent paragraphs 58–62 of Zhou describe
synchronization strategies, none of these paragraphs describes the private
mutable data being synchronized between a data store and each of a plurality
of data sub-stores, as claim 1 requires.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of independent claim 1, and claims 3 and 21,
which depend therefrom. See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of
Appeal 2011-009586
Application 11/393,163

5
California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only
if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly
or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”) (citations omitted);
Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (the “absence from the reference of any claimed element negates
anticipation”) (citation omitted).
The Examiner applies the same reasoning in rejecting independent
claims 10 and 19 (see Ans. 6–9). Therefore, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of independent claims 10 and
19, and claim 22, which depends from claim 10.
Dependent claims 2, 4–9, 11, 13–17, and 20
Each of claims 2, 4–9, 11, 13–17, and 20 ultimately depends from one
of independent claims 1, 10, and 19. The Examiner has not established on
this record that any of the secondary references relied on in rejecting the
dependent claims cure the deficiencies of Zhou, as described above with
respect to independent claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 2, 4–9, 11, 13–17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same
reasons as set forth above with respect to the independent claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–11, 13–17, and 19–22 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a) are reversed.

REVERSED
llw