Ex Parte Singh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2014

11553967 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
____________

Ex parte SUMIT SINGH, ARVIND RAJAGOPALAN, MOHAMMAD LARI,
PAUL BOPPURI, WALID HASSAN, and JAVIER MARTINEZ
____________

Appeal 2011-013178
Application 11/553,967
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-013178
Application 11/553,967

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants claim “[a]n apparatus, method, and software for providing data
dependent routing.” (Spec. 2, ¶[0011]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving sales data associated with a transaction key at a
processor;
selecting one of a plurality of order databases based on the
transaction key and on a load balancing criterion for balancing the
load on the order databases; and
forwarding the sales data to the one order database for storage.

THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berkelhamer (US 2007/0088590 A1, pub.
Apr. 19, 2007) in view of Yousefi’zadeh (US 6,950,848 B1, iss. Sep. 27, 2005).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. We adopt the Examiner’s findings as set forth on pages 3 to 9 of the
Answer.
2. Yousefi’zadeh discloses, “There, is therefore, a need for an
implementation-independent method for the back-end database tier that provides
database load balancing.” Col. 2, ll. 21-23.
Appeal 2011-013178
Application 11/553,967

3
3. Yousefi’zadeh discloses, “To perform database load balancing, in one
embodiment, the LB module 32 comprises one or more load balancing
schemes/methods/processes for assigning incoming transactions to said multiple
database servers 24.” Col. 5, ll. 20-23.

ANALYSIS
Initially, we note that the Appellants argue the independent claims as a
group, electing to have claim 1 be representative to decide the appeal of these
claims. (App. Br. 4).
Appellants argue that, “Yousefi’zadeh is not concerned with available
storage space of databases, but rather is concerned with the ability of servers to
perform new transactions. . . . The Office Action provides no explanation how
load balancing servers for assigning transactions thereby renders obvious load
balancing databases for assigning data for storage. The technical considerations
are different.” (App. Br. 6).
The Examiner however found that:
Also Yousefi’zadeh in at least column 2 lines 20-25 discloses[,]
“There, is therefore, a need for an implementation-independent
method for the back-end database tier that provides database load
balancing”. In view of this teaching the system of Yousefi’zadeh
discloses both, databases servers and databases load balancing
because balancing the server, necessitates balancing the databases as
well because both balancing[s] are connected. The references of
Berkelhamer and Yousefi’zadeh are combinable and usable together.
In the scenario of receiving a prescription order at a pharmacy,
[A]pplicant[s’] invention would perform a first step of selecting an
order database based on a transaction key disclosed in Berkelhamer
Appeal 2011-013178
Application 11/553,967

4
(for example routing the order to a different pharmacy according to
pickup location preference) and then performing a second step of
selecting an order database based on [a] load balancing criterion for
balancing the load on the order databases disclosed in Yousefi’zadeh
(for example at the time that the prescription is received in the second
location, routing the prescription to the corresponding database
according to [a] load balancing criterion).
(Ans. 8-9).
Appellants in reply argue that “balancing the load on a database server does
not necessitate balancing the database. The availability of a database server or the
number of requests that a database server can perform does not necessarily
correspond to the amount of data a database can store.” (Reply Br. 3).
On balance we agree with the Examiner. Claim 1 requires, “selecting one of
a plurality of order databases based on the transaction key and on a load
balancing criterion for balancing the load on the order databases” (emphasis
added). We find nothing in the claim to preclude the selection of an order database
through the intermediary of a database server. In fact, we find that Yousefi’zadeh
explicitly discloses that the reason for having “one or more load balancing
schemes/methods/processes for assigning incoming transactions to said multiple
database servers 24” is “[t]o perform database load balancing” (FF 3). Thus, we
find that the claim requirement of selecting a database based on transaction
data/key and load balancing criteria (“schemes/methods/processes”) is met by
Yousefi’zadeh.
Appellants’ argument that “Yousefi’zadeh is not concerned with available
storage space of databases” (App. Br. 6) is also not persuasive because the claim
Appeal 2011-013178
Application 11/553,967

5
does not require that the criteria be based on available storage space of the
databases.
Appellants further argue, “In addition, the Office Action provides no
rationale why the skilled artisan would even consider load balancing databases for
assigning data for storage when both Yousefi’zadeh and Beckelhamer [sic] are
directed to load balancing for performing transactions.” (App. Br. 6).
We disagree with Appellants because we find the Examiner’s findings to be
rationally and reasonably based on how a person of ordinary skill in the art would
implement the scheme of Yousefi’zadeh in the pharmacy system of Berkelhamer.
(Ans. 8-9).
We also affirm the rejection of the dependent claims since Appellants have
not challenged such with any reasonable specificity (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19,
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21 is AFFIRMED.
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).
AFFIRMED
llw