09930920 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 2010)

Ex Parte Foster et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 20, 2010

09930920 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JOSE MENNECART and STEPHANE GRELLIER ____________ Appeal 2008-000079 Application 10/450,872 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Decided: April 20, 2010 ____________ Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JAY P. LUCAS, and ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-13, 16, and 17. The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Appeal 2008-000079 Application 10/450,872 2 We note that the Appellants filed petitions to revive the instant application as unavoidably abandoned, and that the Office of Petitions decided the petitions. Jurisdiction of the appeal, however, had not left the Board. The application was not abandoned in fact, and the aforementioned petitions and decisions are moot. We consider the Appellants' Second Amended Brief as having been filed timely, and will decide the appeal on the merits. INVENTION The Appellants describes the invention at issue on appeal as follows. "This invention concerns a method for the secure updating of a plurality of data areas contained in a non-volatile memory. The invention takes into consideration in particular the case in which the plurality of data areas need to be updated together." (Spec. 1.) ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 13. A non-volatile backup memory circuit comprising first means for referencing data and second means for backing up information related to data area, each data being associated with a specific data area of the first means and with a corresponding information of the second means. PRIOR ART Coyle 5,220,665 June 15, 1993 Robbins 4,321,667 Mar. 23, 1982 Atmel Flash Programmable Erasable ROM, Application Note AN-1: Atmel AT29 Flash Memories (1998) ("Atmel") Appeal 2008-000079 Application 10/450,872 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Coyle Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Coyle and Atmel. Claims 7 and 10 stand rejected as unpatentable over Coyle and Robbins. CLAIMS 1-5, 6, 8, 16, AND 17 The Examiner finds that "Coyle et al. teaches . . . a first copying step in which the data area and any related characterizing data are copied from the non-volatile memory to the volatile memory and which may the entire content of the volatile memory (figure 6 element 88) . . . ." (Ans. 3.) The Appellants argue that "the cited passage does not teach or suggest the copying of a data area and information related thereto into the volatile memory as claimed." (Reply Br. 4.) ISSUE Therefore, the issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in finding that Coyle teaches copying data and information related to the data area into a volatile memory as recited in independent claims 1, 6, 16, and 17. LAW "It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under Â§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim, and that anticipation is a fact question . . . ." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Appeal 2008-000079 Application 10/450,872 4 Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). FINDINGS OF FACT Coyle's "FIG. 6 is a high level flowchart depicting the opening of a persistent cursor . . . ." (Col. 3, ll. 32-34.) The flowchart's "block 88 illustrates the allocation of buffers for scan entries and any intermediate results which may be generated while materializing the query result set." (Col. 5, ll. 46-49.) ANALYSIS Block 88 of Coyle depicts the allocation of buffers for scan entries and any intermediate results which may be generated while materializing the query result set. We are unpersuaded that such an allocation involves copying data and information related to the data area into a volatile memory. The Examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Robbins or Atmel cures the aforementioned deficiency of Coyle. CONCLUSION Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, we conclude that the Examiner has erred in finding that Coyle teaches copying data and information related to the data area into a volatile memory as recited in independent claims 1, 6, 16, and 17. Appeal 2008-000079 Application 10/450,872 5 CLAIM 13 The Examiner finds that "Coyle et al. teaches . . . a first means of reference (to data and/or related characterizing data to be modified by an implicit processor executing a transaction query and comprising a cursor, figure 6) . . . ." (Ans. 3.) The Appellants argue that their "first means for referencing data does not range in the manner of a cursor." (Reply Br. 3.) ISSUE Therefore, the issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in finding that Coyle teaches a first means for referencing data. FINDINGS OF FACT Coyle discloses that "[a] named 'cursor' may be associated with a query and utilized to evaluate and enumerate the query by operations known as 'open' and 'fetch.'" (Col. 1, ll. 27-29.) The Appellants admit that "'[i]n database packages, the term cursor refers to a control structure for the successive traversal (and potential processing) of records returned in a result set.' Wikipedia, Cursor (databases), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Cursor(databases) (describing the concept of Cursors in database management systems) (last modified September 16, 2008; printed on October 2, 2008). ANALYSIS Coyle discloses a cursor. The Appellants admit that a cursor is a control structure for the successive traversal (and potential processing) of records returned in a result set. The records constitute data. Because the Appeal 2008-000079 Application 10/450,872 6 cursor is a control structure for the successive traversal (and potential processing) of records, which are themselves data, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the cursor references data. The argument that the claimed "first means" does not range in the manner of the reference's cursor is unpersuasive because the claim does not preclude such ranging. CONCLUSION Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in finding that Coyle teaches a first means for referencing data. CLAIMS 9-12 Based on the Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 18-20), we will decide the appeal of claims 9-12 based on claim 9 alone. The Examiner finds that "Coyle et al. teaches . . . a checking step in which a first means of reference is either disabled or not, see figure 10 element 168 and column 8 lines 63-68." (Ans. 4-5.) The Appellants argue that "Coyle does not teach or suggest checking whether the backup memory has been disabled and using that as a trigger to determine whether there is further data to be restored (b)." (App. Br. 18.) ISSUE Therefore, the issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in finding that Coyle teaches checking whether the first means is disabled and Appeal 2008-000079 Application 10/450,872 7 using that as a trigger to determine whether there is further data to be restored. LAW "All of the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966)). "'The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.'" In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)). FINDINGS OF FACT Coyle's " FIG. 10 is a high level flowchart depicting the treatment of a persistent and/or restartable cursor in the event of a transaction roll-back . . . ." (Col. 3, ll. 46-49.) More specifically, the flowchart "begins at block 166 thereafter passes to block 168 which illustrates the iterative nature of this process for each cursor within the open cursor table." (Col. 8, ll. 29-32.) "[B]lock 172 illustrates a determination of whether or not any additional open cursors exist within the open cursor table and if so, the process returns iteratively to block 168 to continue the process." (Id. at ll. 35-38.) ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that the claimed checking whether the first means is disabled reads on block 168 of Coyle. The Appellants do not address, let alone show error in this specific finding. For our part, we note that Appeal 2008-000079 Application 10/450,872 8 block 172 of the same flowchart illustrates a determination of whether or not any additional open cursors exist within the open cursor table and if so, the process returns iteratively to block 168 to continue the process. Such an operation constitutes to determine whether there is further data to be restored. Because block 168 precedes block 170 in the flowchart, moreover, the former serves as a trigger for the latter. CONCLUSION Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in finding that Coyle teaches checking whether the first means is disabled and using that as a trigger to determine whether there is further data to be restored. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1-5, 6, 8, 16, and 17. In contrast, we affirm the rejections of claims 9-13. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Erc THE JANSSON FIRM 3616 Far West Blvd Ste 117-314 AUSTIN TX 78731