Ex Parte Javalkar

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2012

11669655 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte SHIRISH S. JAVALKAR
________________

Appeal 2010-003555
Application 11/669,655
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before THOMAS S. HAHN, ERIC B. CHEN, and
ANDREW CALDWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALDWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003555
Application 11/669,655

2
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application.
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as directed to the
synchronization of dissimilar databases. A first database, which is part of a
first computer system, is updated. However, this update does not initially
commit the database update to the first database. The first computer system
calls a remote function to incorporate the database update into a second
database that is part of a second computer system. In response to the remote
function determining that the second database has been successfully
updated, the database update is committed to the first database in the first
computer system. In response to the remote function determining that the
second database has not been successfully updated, the dataset update is
rolled back such that the first computer system is unaware of the attempted
updating of the first database. Abstract.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is shown below with key
disputed limitations italicized:
1. A method for synchronizing databases between two disparate
computer systems, the method comprising:
loading a buffer, which is part of a first computer system, with a
database update, wherein loading the buffer does not commit the
database update to a first database in the first computer system;
calling a remote function, in the first computer system, to incorporate
the database update into a second database that is part of a second
Appeal 2010-003555
Application 11/669,655

3
computer system, wherein the first and second computer systems
operate in disparate environments;
in response to the remote function determining that the second
database has been successfully updated with the database update,
committing the database update to the first database in the first
computer system; and
in response to the remote function determining that the second
database has not been successfully updated with the database update,
rolling back the database update in the buffer such that the first
computer system is unaware of an attempted updating of the first
database.

The Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Carr (US 7,313,575 B2; Dec. 25, 2007; filed June 14, 2004) in view of
O’Farrell (US 7,366,460 B2; Apr. 29, 2008; filed Jan. 23, 2004).

ANALYSIS1
The Examiner finds that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination
of Carr in view of O’Farrell and relies upon Carr to teach the “loading” and
“committing” steps of claim 1. Ans. 3-5, 14-15, 19-22. The Examiner’s
findings point to large sections of the references without a clear explanation
of how the cited portions of Carr relate to the claim language. However, two
findings are more specific. The Examiner finds that Systems, Applications,
and Products (SAP) instance 318 teaches the first database, the NonStop
server 320 teaches the second computer system, and the Real Time Supply

1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed August 31, 2009; and the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed October 21, 2009.
Appeal 2010-003555
Application 11/669,655

4
Chain database 306 teaches the second database. Id. at 13. Alternatively,
the Examiner finds that the Integration Server 312 “works” with the plural
SAP instances 318 to form the first database and that the real time
information director 302 “works” with the Real Time Supply Chain database
306 to form the second database. Id. at 20.
Appellant explains that the “committing” step must be read in
conjunction with the “loading” step of claim 1. Br. 9. The claim as a whole
therefore sets forth a method where a database update is not immediately
committed to the first database. Instead, the database update is buffered for
a time and thereafter committed in response to the remote function
determining that the database update successfully updated a second database
on a second computer system. Id. Appellant argues that the portions of Carr
cited by the Examiner in the Final Office Action fail to teach the specific
claimed limitations identified above. Id. at 15.
The Examiner has pointed to no persuasive evidence in Carr, nor do
we find any, that supports the assertion that a database update is buffered for
a time at a first computer system and later committed in the first database in
response to the remote function determining that the database update
successfully updated a database on a second computer system. Nor are we
persuaded that the alternative rationales identified above support a finding
that Carr teaches the claimed limitation. There is no probative evidence in
Carr to suggest that when, as in Figure 3A, a SAP instance sends an IDoc to
the NonStop Server 320 that the SAP instance waits for the database update
to be successfully committed in the Real Time Supply Chain database 306
before committing the dataset update in the SAP instance database. We also
find nothing in O’Farrell which overcomes the deficiency in Carr.
Appeal 2010-003555
Application 11/669,655

5
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2-6 depend from independent claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 7 and 13 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 7 and 13, as well as claims 8-12 and 14-20, which depend
from claims 7 and 13, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc