Ex Parte Hsiao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

10135982 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/135,982 04/30/2002
24955 7590 06/22/2018
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
Jeanne Gahagan
4420 Hotel Circle Court
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hui-I Hsiao
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.
ARC920000014US2 7328
EXAMINER
OHBA, MELLISSA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUI-I HSIAO, JOSHUA WAI-HO HUI,
and IND ERP A SINGH NARANG
Appeal2017-001662 1
Application 10/135,9822
Technology Center 2100
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, 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 32--42, 49, 53, 60, 61, 65-72, 74, 75, 77-83, 85-91, 95-
120, and 122. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
April 7, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed November 11, 2016), and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed November 10, 2016) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed April 6, 2016).
2 Appellants identify IBM Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
3 The claims listing filed December 9, 2015 indicates that claims 1-31, 43-
48, 50-52, 54--59, 62---64, 73, 76, 84, 92-94, and 121 are cancelled.
Appeal2017-001662
Application 10/135,982
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates generally to using a database
management system (DBMS) to manage files that are external to the DBMS,
and more particularly to updating external files using SQL to maintain
transactional consistency" (Spec. 1, 11. 9-11 ).
Claims 32, 65, 77, 85, and 107 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 85, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
85. A system for maintaining metadata in a database
system consistent with file data in a file system including at least
one manager, the file data being represented by the metadata, the
system comprising:
at least one SQL interface on a non-transitory computer
readable medium facilitating metadata and file updates in an
atomic manner, at least one processor being configured to access
computer instructions on the medium which instructions when
executed by the processor configure the processor to ensure that
files in the file system and referenced by the database system are
not updated except responsive to a determination that a
transaction reflecting corresponding changes in the metadata is
determined to have committed in the database system, wherein
the manager is configured to, responsive to the database system,
make logged operations pertaining to an original file having a
replacement file persistent, wherein the manager is further
configured to determine whether the make persistent is
successful, and responsive to a determination that the make
persistent is successful undertake at least one of: setting at least
one security attribute of the replacement file to be a security
attribute of the original file, renaming the replacement file to
have the name of the original file.
2
Appeal2017-001662
Application 10/135,982
REJECTIONS
Claim 85 and 1004 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as
anticipated by Bums et al. (US 6,088,694, iss. July 11, 2000) ("Bums").
Claims 32--42, 49, 53, 60, 61, 65-72, 74, 75, 77-83, 86-91, 95-99,
101-120, and 122 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Bums and Sedlar (US 6,549,916 Bl, iss. Apr. 15, 2003).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 85 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) at least because Bums fails to
disclose "undertak[ing] at least one of: setting at least one security attribute
of the replacement file to be a security attribute of the original file, [ and]
renaming the replacement file to have the name of the original file"
responsive to a determination that the make persistent is successful, as called
for in claim 85 (App. Br. 12-13).
Figure 5 of Bums, on which the Examiner relies (Final Act. 4; see
also Ans. 4--5), "is a representation of metadata maintained by the file server
of FIG. 1 for files maintained in the file storage" (Bums col. 6, 11. 58-59),
and includes, for example, group names, file names, access control, read-
only flags, and recovery identification information (id. at col. 10, 11. 5-13).
Bums discloses that control information, as shown in Figure 5, is used by
the system to block unauthorized RENAME and DELETE requests from file
system users (id. at col. 10, 11. 13-28). But we agree with Appellants that
4 Claim 88 depends from claim 86, which stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a). As such, we treat claim 88 as though rejected under§ I03(a), not
§ I02(e).
3
Appeal2017-001662
Application 10/135,982
there is nothing in the cited portions of Bums that discloses setting a security
attribute or renaming a file in response to a determination that a make
persistent, i.e., a database transaction, is successful (App. Br. 12-13).
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 85
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 100.
Obviousness
Independent Claims 77 and Dependent Claims 78---83, 96, 99, 103, and 104
In rejecting independent claim 77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
Examiner acknowledges that "Bums et al. ... does not explicitly teach
responsive to a determination that the transaction commits, setting at least
one security attribute of an original file as a security attribute of a
replacement file," as recited in claim 77 (Final Act. 15) ( emphasis omitted).
And the Examiner cites Sedlar to cure the deficiency of Bums (id. ( citing
Sedlar, col. 11, 11. 22---62)).
We have carefully reviewed the cited portion of Sedlar, on which the
Examiner relies. And, we agree with Appellants that there is nothing in that
portion of Sedlar that discloses or suggests setting a security attribute of a
replacement file, as called for in claim 77 (App. Br. 17-18). Instead, Sedlar
merely discloses a process for verifying that a user requesting access to a file
has permission to perform the type of access requested for the specified file.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 77
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 78-83, 96, 99, 103, and 104. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent
claims from which they depend are nonobvious").
4
Appeal2017-001662
Application 10/135,982
Independent Claim 32 and Dependent Claims 33-42, 49, 53, 60, and 61
Independent claim 32 is directed to a computer program product
comprising, inter alia, "means for, responsive to a determination that the
[database] transaction [in the database system] commits, designating, as the
name of the replacement file, the name of the original file; and removing the
original file from the file system."
The Examiner acknowledges that Bums does not disclose this
limitation (Final Act. 6), and cites Sedlar's description of conventional file
systems to cure the deficiency of Bums:
Sedlar states that "new versions of files are typically stored with
the same name and in the same location as the older versions
that they are replacing. In conventional file systems, this process
overwrites the older version of the file, making it irrecoverable".
Sedlar is used for its statement about what was conventional, not
its changes or invention.
(Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 6-7 (citing Sedlar, col. 30, 11. 31-58)).
Yet, we find nothing in the cited portion of Sedlar that discloses or suggests
that these "conventional file systems" are linked to a separate database
system that stores and manages metadata for files stored in the file system
and, therefore, nothing that discloses or suggests renaming a replacement
file and removing the original file from the file system if a database
transaction commits, as called for in claim 32.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 33--42, 49, 53, 60, and
61.
5
Appeal2017-001662
Application 10/135,982
Independent Claim 65 and Dependent Claims 66--72, 74, 75, 95, 98, 101,
and 102
Independent claim 65 is directed to a method for ensuring consistency
between metadata stored in a database system and files stored in a file
system and represented by the metadata. Similar to independent claim 32,
claim 65 recites "responsive to a determination that the transaction commits,
designating, as the name of the replacement file, the name of the original file
and removing the original file from the file system." The combination of
Bums and Sedlar does not disclose or suggest this limitation for the reasons
set forth above with respect to independent claim 32.
Independent claim 65 also recites "responsive to a determination that
the transaction does not commit ... at least one manager receiving at least
one message from the database system ... [and] extracting security
attributes from the original file in response to the message." The Examiner
cites column 11, lines 22---62 of Sedlar as disclosing that security attributes
are extracted from the original file (Final Act. 13). In fact, rather than
disclosing that security attributes are extracted from the original file, Sedlar
discloses that security attributes are retrieved from a security table stored in
the database system (see Sedlar, col. 11, 11. 42--46).
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of independent claim 65, and claims 66-72, 74, 75, 95, 98, 101, and
102, which depend therefrom.
Independent Claim 107 and Dependent Claims 108-120 and 122
Independent claim 107 is directed to a device comprising at least one
non-transitory computer memory having instructions which when executed
by at least one computer processor configure the at least one computer
6
Appeal2017-001662
Application 10/135,982
processor for commencing a database transaction in a database system.
Claim 107 recites "responsive to a determination that the transaction
commits, designating, as the name of the replacement file, the name of the
original file; and removing the original file from the file system," and further
recites:
not designating, as the name of the replacement file, the name of
the original file responsive to a determination that the transaction
does not commit, wherein the instructions when executed by the
processor configure the processor for establishing at least in part
a second phase of a commit, and wherein the instructions when
executed by the processor configure the processor for, responsive
to a determination that a system crash occurs during the second
phase, reexecuting at least the designating and removing acts to
restart the system.
As described above with respect to independent claim 32, the
combination of Bums and Sedlar fails to disclose or suggest renaming the
replacement file and removing the original file from the file system. We
also find nothing in the cited portion of Bums, on which the Examiner relies,
that discloses or suggests establishing a second phase of a commit or
restarting the system if a system crash occurs during the second phase (see
Final Act. 17 (citing Bums, col. 5, 11. 41-53; col. 10, 1. 31---col. 11, 1. 28)).
Bums, at column 5, discloses recovering files from a backup server in
the event of a system failure. And Bums discloses, at columns 10-11, that a
DLFM (DataLinks File Manager) supports coordinated backup and recovery
between the database files and file system files. Bums also discloses that
"[t]he DBMS [Database Management System] interacts with the DLFM
using a two-phase commit protocol to provide transaction atomicity" (Bums,
col. 10, 11. 64---66). But we fail to see how, and the Examiner does not
explain how, this teaching in Bums, alone or in combination with Sedlar,
7
Appeal2017-001662
Application 10/135,982
discloses or suggests "responsive to a determination that a system crash
occurs during the second phase, reexecuting at least the designating [ as the
name of the replacement file, the name of the original file] and removing
[ the original file from the file system] acts to restart the system," as recited
in claim 107.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 107, and claims 108-120 and
122, which depend therefrom.
Dependent Claims 86--91, 97, 105, and 106
Each of claims 86-91, 97, 105, and 106 depends, directly or
indirectly, from independent claim 85. The Examiner has not established,
on this record, that Sedlar remedies the shortcomings of Bums, as described
above with respect to claim 85. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 86-91, 97, 105, and 106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of claims 85 and
100 is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 32--42,
49,53,60,61,65-72, 74, 75, 77-83,86-91,95-99, 101-120,and 122is
reversed.
REVERSED
8