Ex Parte Rajakumar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2017

13601135 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2017)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/601,135 08/31/2012 Konduru Israel RAJAKUMAR 1933.2240002 1060
82515 7590 10/24/2017
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
EXAMINER
YEN, SYLING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte KONDURU ISRAEL RAJAKUMAR1
_____________

Appeal 2015-003031
Application 13/601,135
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 21 through 41.
We reverse.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for use on a computer for
performing a transaction on a column of a database by using a shared
numeric lock which allows a first and second transaction to access the same
column without releasing the lock. The method determines if the second

1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is SAP AG. App. Br.
3.
Appeal 2015-003031
Application 13/601,135

2

transaction fulfills a criteria and if so, the shared numeric lock allows the
transactions concurrent access the column. When all of the transactions
fulfilling the criteria are completed processing, the lock is released. See
Spec., Abstract.
Claim 21 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
21. A method comprising:
determining whether a first transaction includes an
operation on a data object, wherein the data object is protected
by a shared lock held by at least a second transaction;
determining whether the first transaction satisfies a
criteria for access by the shared lock, wherein the criteria
comprises a determination that the operation on the data object
is performed independently of an existing value of the data
object;
processing, using the shared lock, the first transaction
based on the determination that the first transaction satisfies the
criteria for access concurrently with the second transaction,
wherein the shared lock includes a shared numeric lock data
structure configured to permit manipulation of data for the first
transaction and the second transaction and wherein the shared
lock further includes a list of transactions using the shared lock
and a concurrent transaction count indicating a number of
transactions that are concurrently using the shared lock; and
releasing the shared lock when the concurrent transaction
count equals zero.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 21 through 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Verma (US 7,555,481, issued June 30, 2009)
and Bailey (US 2005/0234989, published Oct. 20, 2005). Final Act. 3–18.2

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 2,
2014, Reply Brief filed January 2, 2015, Final Office Action mailed June 11,
2014, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on November 4, 2014.
Appeal 2015-003031
Application 13/601,135

3

ISSUES
Appellant argues, on pages 6 through 18 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 2 through 11 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 21, 27, and 33 is in error. The dispositive issue
presented by these arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Verma and Bailey teaches the shared lock includes a list of
transactions using the shared lock, as recited in each of the independent
claims.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We agree with Appellant’s
contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent clams 21, 27,
and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s arguments, states:
Verma clearly describes a shared lock S associated with
multiple transactions that access the same data items at the
same time.
As described Bailey [0012], [0030] - [0031], [0035],
[0040] and Figs. 1 & 6, a parent lock includes a plurality of
child locks (i.e. a hierarchy tree) through “defining parent child
relation among of locks.” Each child lock serves as a pointer to
reference a transaction such as modifying a single row with
exclusive lock.
The transactions associated those child locks included in
the shared numeric lock data structure are clearly using each
respectively child lock to modify/access data. The hierarchy
tree of the parent lock and the child locks with the associated
transactions can be reasonably interpreted as a shared lock that
includes a list of transactions using the shared lock.
Appeal 2015-003031
Application 13/601,135

4

Answer 15.
Appellant in reply states:
Even if Bailey's parent lock “'includes a list of child
locks,” Which it does not, a “list of child locks” is not the same
as a “list of transactions.” Bailey indicates that “[e]ach of the
locks [e.g. a parent lock] at the various levels can also contain a
reference count of the number of child locks that directly exist
at the lower level of that [parent] lock.” (Bailey, ¶ 31). As
argued on page 13 of the Appeal brief and indicated in FIGS. 2
and 3, a “child lock” at various levels may be associated with a
lock on a row, page, table, or the database. (Bailey, ¶ 31, 33.)
Bailey does not teach or suggest a “shared lock that includes a
list of transactions using the shared lock,” as recited in claim
21.
Answer 8.
We agree with the Appellant and disagree with the Examiner’s finding
that the hierarchy tree is reasonably interpreted as including a list of
transactions as claimed. Bailey teaches the parent locks, are associated with
child locks, and thus, the hierarchy identifies other locks not transactions as
claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
21, 27, and 33 or dependent claims 22 through 26, 28 through 32 and 34
through 41.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21–41 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REVERSED