Ex Parte Kanamatareddy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2014

12027284 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RAVI K.R. KANAMATAREDDY
____________________

Appeal 2011-012309
Application 12/027,284
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012309
Application 12/027,284

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.1

THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates generally to data management
and, more particularly, to data management for data aggregation, including
data mining and reporting” (Spec., para. [0001]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method of managing data for data aggregation, the
method comprising:
determining a plurality of locations of data to be
collected within a source database;
acquiring at least one access configuration log of the
plurality of locations from which data will be collected;
simultaneously collecting data from the plurality of the
locations;
aggregating the collected data;
normalizing the aggregated data, wherein normalizing
includes adding an encryption key to the aggregated data;
storing the normalized data; and
releasing the data at each of the plurality of locations in
the source database.

1 Our decision will refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
February 14, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 18, 2011), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 17, 2011).
Appeal 2011-012309
Application 12/027,284

3
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vittal (US 6,907,401 B1, iss. Jun. 14, 2005),
Barabas (US 7,587,428 B2, iss. Sep. 8, 2009), and Jiang (US 7,356,572 B2,
iss. Apr. 8, 2008).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Vittal, Barabas, Jiang, and Matson (US 2002/0124005 A1, pub. Sep. 5,
2002).

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because none of Vittal, Barabas,
and Jiang, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests “simultaneously
collecting data from the plurality of the locations,” as recited in claim 1
(App. Br. 6-10 and Reply Br. 4-5).
The Examiner cites Figures 1 and 2, column 18, line 48 through
column 19, line 25, and column 28, line 55 through column 29, line 9 of
Barabas as disclosing the argued feature (Ans. 4 and 7). Yet we can find
nothing in these portions of Barabas that discloses or suggests
simultaneously collecting data from a plurality of locations, as called for in
claim 1.
Referring to Figure 1, Barabas describes at column 18, line 48 through
column 19, line 25, on which the Examiner relies, that a business data unit
(BDU) contains a plurality of data objects, and that “[t]o locate an object in
Appeal 2011-012309
Application 12/027,284

4
the BDU, information about the object, including its location or other
attributes, is stored and arranged [i.e., indexed] for efficient access in a
parallel (concurrent) processing environment.” Barabas also explains that
“[i]n a database system that allows tens of thousands (or more) of
simultaneous data accesses, it is crucial to maintain the integrity of the index
while avoiding access conflicts.” But there is nothing in this portion of
Barabas that discloses or suggests that data is simultaneously collected from
a plurality of locations, i.e., “simultaneously collecting data from the
plurality of the locations,” as recited in claim 1.
There also is no such suggestion or disclosure at column 28, line 55
through column 29, line 9 of Barabas. Claim 1 (which encompasses the
cited passage) is directed to a computer-implemented method for persistently
storing data in two different regions or physical clusters of a database, and
recites that the method comprises, inter alia, controlling access to the data to
prevent conflicting write accesses to data within the same region or physical
cluster, while permitting simultaneous write accesses to data in different
regions or physical clusters. Yet we fail to see how, and the Examiner does
not explain how, permitting simultaneous write access to data in different
regions or physical clusters of a database discloses or suggests
“simultaneously collecting data from the plurality of locations,” as recited in
claim 1.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). For the same reasons, we also will not sustain the rejection of
claims 2-5, which depend from claim 1.

Appeal 2011-012309
Application 12/027,284

5
Independent claims 7, 13, and 18 and dependent claims 8-11, 14-17, 19, and
20
Independent claims 7, 13, and 18 include language substantially
similar to the language of claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1. For the same
reasons, we also will not sustain the rejection of claims 8-11, 14-17, 19, and
20, each of which depends from one of claims 7, 13, and 18.
Dependent claims 6 and 12
Claims 6 and 12 depend from claims 1 and 7, respectively. The
Examiner has not established on this record that Matson cures the
deficiencies of Barabas, as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as set forth above with
respect to independent claims from which they depend.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.

REVERSED
mls