Ex Parte Colrain et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

13542278 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/542,278 07/05/2012 Carol L. Colrain
42425 7590 03/25/2016
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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.
50277-3891 3944
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KIM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CAROLL. COLRAIN, HOCHAK HUNG, and KEVIN S. NEEL
Appeal2014-005153
Application 13/542,278
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-33, which constitute all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to executing commands in different
server-side environments. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 10 is exemplary:
Appeal2014-005153
Application 13/542,278
10. A method comprising:
a server machine m a second server-client sess10n
receiving, from a client:
one or more items of server-side environment
information for a first server-client session on which a set
of commands was previously sent for execution; and
one or more commands of the set of commands for
execution in the second server-client session;
in response to receiving the one or more items of server-
side environment information, the server machine determining
whether or not the server machine is compatible with the one or
more items of server-side environment information to start
executing the one or more commands in the second server-
client session.
References and Rejections
Claims 1-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Kaluskar (U.S. 7,552,218 B2; Jun. 23, 2009).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments,
and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the
Examiner erred in finding Kaluskar discloses "a server machine in a second
server-client session receiving, from a client: one or more items ... for a
first server-client session on which a set of commands was previously sent
for execution; and one or more commands of the set of commands for
2
Appeal2014-005153
Application 13/542,278
execution in the second server-client session," as recited in independent
claim 10 (emphases added). 1
The Examiner cites Kaluskar' s Figure 4 for the above claim
limitations. See Ans. 4-5. The Examiner maps Kaluskar's source instance
inst22 (abbreviated as "SOURCE" on Figure 4) to the claimed "client," and
Kaluskar's destination instance inst24 (abbreviated as "DEST" on Figure 4)
to the claimed "server machine." See Ans. 4--5. Kaluskar describes Figure 4
as follows:
[In] Figure 4 . . . The protocol is 65 illustrated using client
cl 30, source instance inst22, and destination instance inst24 as
participants in the protocol .... work load manager wm20 may
determine that a set of sessions be migrated from source
instance inst22 to destination instance inst24 to shift work load
from source instance inst22 to destination instance inst24.
Kaluskar 7:65-8:6 (emphases added).
Further, Kaluskar describes source instance inst22 and destination
instance inst24 as database instances; which are not the client c130.
Kaluskar 6:43-49 ("Fig. 3 []shows database instance inst22 and inst24 as
source instance inst22 and destination instance inst24. Client c130 is a
process that is running on a client computer cmp30. Client computer cmp30
is a computer that is separate from any node in database cluster dbc20 and
that hosts one or more database clients of database cluster .... ) (emphasis
added).
Because Kaluskar' s source instance inst22 and destination instance
inst24 are similar database instances, they do not have the client and server
relationship required by the claim. See App. Br. 6. Although the Examiner
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2014-005153
Application 13/542,278
correctly maps Kaluskar' s destination instance inst24 to the claimed "server
machine," the Examiner incorrectly maps Kaluskar's source instance inst22
to the claimed "client." See App. Br. 5-8. As a result, the Examiner fails to
show Kaluskar discloses "a server machine in a second server-client session
receiving, from a client: one or more items ... for a first server-client
session on which a set of commands was previously sent for execution; and
one or more commands of the set of commands for execution in the second
server-client session," as required by claim 10 (emphases added).
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support
the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 10, and corresponding dependent claims 11-
17 and 29-31 for similar reasons.
Independent claim 18 recites limitations that are substantively the
same as the disputed claim limitations of claim 1. See claim 18.
Independent claim 1 recites a "client machine" and "sever-client session."
Claim 1. Therefore, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 10, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1
and 18, and corresponding dependent claims 2-9, 19-28, 32, and 33.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-33.
REVERSED
4