Ex Parte Wall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12010414 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/010,414 01124/2008
293 7590 06/30/2016
DOWELL & DOWELL, P.C.
103 ORONOCO ST, SUITE 220
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Wall
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.
16256 6167
EXAMINER
DA YE, CHELCIE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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 JOHN WALL, JOHN PAUL LOESER,
KHOA TRAN, and MARIUS DAN STROE
Appeal2014-004169
Application 12/010,414
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies SYMCOR, Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed April 30, 2013
("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed January 22, 2014 ("Reply Br.");
Examiner's Answer mailed November 20, 2013 ("Ans."); and Final Office
Action mailed May 29, 2012 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2014-004169
Application 12/010,414
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 17 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
reproduced below (disputed limitation in italics):
1. A distributed replicated database system storing a
database having a plurality of records, said database system
compnsmg:
a plurality of federated database systems each storing a
complete copy of said database, each federated database system
comprising at least one server with said at least one server
divided into at least one logical partition, said at least one
logical partition containing records in said database and all
logical partitions at a federated database system cumulatively
storing all records in said database; and
a computing device hosting an application for updating
said distributed replicated database system so that changes in
said database are propagated to each copy of said database, said
computing device in communication with a computer readable
medium storing a data structure, said data structure containing
an indicator for each logical partition in each of said federated
database systems of said plurality of federated database
systems, each indicator indicating whether all records in a
given logical partition have been updated to reflect changes to
records in said database that are stored in said given logical
partition, as a change in said database is propagated to each
copy of said database in said plurality of federated database
systems.
Primak et al.
Bourbonnais et al.
Luniewski et al.
Bhatia et al.
References
US 2002/0010783 Al
US 7,076,508 B2
US 2007/0143344 Al
US 2009/0063398 Al
2
Jan.24,2002
July 11, 2006
June 21, 2007
Mar. 5, 2009
Appeal2014-004169
Application 12/010,414
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Luniewski, Bourbonnais, and Bhatia. Final Act. 2-8.
Claims 28-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Luniewski, Bourbonnais, Bhatia, and Primak.
Final Act. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 9-18; Reply Br. 2-9). We are not
persuaded by Appellants' contentions. Insofar as they relate to issues raised
in this appeal, we adopt as our own the Examiner's findings and we agree
with the Examiner's conclusions. See Final Act. 2-10; Ans. 3-14. We
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Luniewski, Bourbonnais, and Bhatia teaches or suggests a
data structure containing an indicator for each logical partition in
each of said federated database systems of said plurality of
federated database systems, each indicator indicating whether all
records in a given logical partition have been updated to reflect
changes to records in said database that are stored in said given
logical partition,
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 2--4. With respect to
Bourbonnais, Appellants argue the disclosed logs "reflect changes to
database data that occurred in the past, and do not reflect whether any
additional changes are required, e.g., whether all records in a given logical
3
Appeal2014-004169
Application 12/010,414
partition have been updated to reflect changes to records in said database."
App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants argue Bhatia does not
disclose an indicator as claimed but rather discloses storing data indicating
certain database table attributes, such as size. App. Br. 12-13 (citing Bhatia
iTiT 10, 15, 29).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner relies on teachings of
Bourbonnais describing commit log records showing transactions that have
been successfully committed to a database. See Final Act. 4 (citing
Bourbonnais, col. 8, 11. 4--7, col. 16, 11. 8-21); See Ans. 11-13 (citing
Bourbonnais, col. 11, 11. 15-19, 47-54, col. 12, 11. 30-34, col. 16, 11. 1-21).
Based on the teachings of Bourbonnais in combination with the teachings of
Luniewski and Bhatia, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art "that the records are up-to-date until
there is another transaction that needs to be processed." Ans. 11. We agree
with the Examiner.
Bourbonnais explains that "[u]se of a distributed commit protocol
ensures the atomicity of the transaction and ensures that all participating
nodes in a distributed database environment remain in a consistent state."
Bourbonnais, col. 8, 11. 4--7 (emphasis added) (cited at Final Act. 4, n.3).
For example, Bourbonnais describes a "two-phase commit" procedure that is
used to maintain database nodes in a consistent state. See Bourbonnais, col.
8, 11. 8-33. Bourbonnais explains:
A transaction 600 may require access (e.g., for reading and/or
updating) to data A 612, data B 622, and data C 632. The
transaction 600 is submitted to a coordinator node A 610, which
forwards requests for access to data in data B 622 and data C 632
for the transaction to subordinate nodes B 620 and C 630,
respectively. When coordinator node A 610 receives a Commit
4
Appeal2014-004169
Application 12/010,414
from transaction 600 indicating that changes made by the
transaction should be committed to data 612, data B 622, and
data C 632, coordinator node A 610 notifies subordinate nodes B
620 and C 630 that it is preparing to commit. Subordinate nodes
B 620 and C 630 record subordinate Prepare to Commit log
entries, prepare to commit, and respond to coordinator node A
610. Then, coordinator node A 610 commits changes made by
transaction 600, records a coordinator Commit log entry, and
notifies subordinate nodes B 62 0 and C 63 0 that it has
committed. Subordinate nodes B 620 and C 630 commit.
Bourbonnais, col. 8, 11. 13-29 (emphasis added).
A broad but reasonable interpretation of an "indicator indicating
whether all records in a given logical partition have been updated" includes
an indication that all records have been updated as well as an indication that
any one of the records has not been updated. The disclosure of Bourbonnais
reproduced above supports the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness
because notification to the subordinate nodes that the coordinating node has
committed data indicates that records in the subordinate nodes are not
updated, at least until the subordinate nodes subsequently commit. Thus, we
disagree with Appellants' contention that "it is simply impossible to
determine from Bourbonnais' s log whether there are any additional
transactions that need to be completed, and thus impossible to determine
whether all records are up-to-date." Reply Br. 3. The teachings of
Bourbonnais demonstrate the use of commit log entries to indicate records
that need to be updated, which falls within the scope of the claimed
"indicator."
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness based on the teachings of Luniewski,
Bourbonnais, and Bhatia.
5
Appeal2014-004169
Application 12/010,414
Claims 8 and 17
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Luniewski, Bourbonnais, and Bhatia teaches or suggests "modifying said
data structure to indicate that said all logical partitions across said plurality
of federated database systems storing a copy of said record are not up-to-
date," as recited in independent claim 8. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4--6. For
reasons similar to those explained with respect to claim 1, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments. In particular, Bourbonnais teaches a
commit procedure, discussed above with respect to claim 1, using commit
log entries and notifications to subordinate nodes that the coordinating node
has committed data, which indicate that records in the subordinate nodes are
not updated. See Bourbonnais, col. 8, 11. 4--33. Thus, there is a modification
to data indicating that nodes storing a record affected by the commit
procedure are not up to date.
As such, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments with respect
to claim 8 as well as claim 17, which Appellants argue with claim 8.
Claims 3, 11-13, and 20--22
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Luniewski, Bourbonnais, and Bhatia teaches or suggests that "a copy of said
data structure is stored at each of said plurality of federated database systems
and updates to a data structure at one of said plurality of federated database
systems are propagated to other copies of said data structure," as recited in
claim 3, which depends from claim 1. App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 6-7.
Appellants argue Luniewski does not teach storing a copy of the data
structure as claimed at each federated database system or propagating
updates to this data structure. App. Br. 15. Appellants also argue that,
6
Appeal2014-004169
Application 12/010,414
although Luniewski teaches replicating database data, the cited portions do
not teach or suggest "storing or propagating any information regarding
whether any database data is up-to-date." Reply Br. 6-7 (citing Luniewski
i-fi-129, 31, and 34). Appellants further argue "Bourbonnais does not disclose
that a .QQP.Y of a recovery log is stored at each database system, or that
updates to the log are propagated to any other copies of the log." Reply
Br. 7.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness. As explained above, Bourbonnais teaches the
use of commit log entries and notifications to subordinate nodes that the
coordinating node has committed data, which indicate that records in the
subordinate nodes are not updated. See Bourbonnais, col. 8, 11. 4--33. Thus,
an update at the coordinating node is propagated to the subordinate nodes.
Furthermore, as the Examiner finds, Luniewski teaches that it is known in
the database arts to replicate data between servers to maintain consistency.
See Ans. 14 (citing Luniewski i134). Thus, we find Luniewski's teaching of
replicating data between servers to maintain consistency and Bourbonnais' s
teachings of a commit procedure involving propagation of updates to other
nodes support the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 as obvious.
As such, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments with respect
to claim 3 as well as claims 11-13 and 20-22, which Appellants argue with
claim 3.
Claim 7
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Luniewski, Bourbonnais, and Bhatia teaches or suggests that "said data
structure contains an indicator of the records of said database that are
7
Appeal2014-004169
Application 12/010,414
contained in each of said at least one logical partition, across said federated
database systems," as recited in claim 7, which depends from claim 1. App.
Br. 16-17. Appellants argue the relied-upon portion of Bourbonnais teaches
recovery logs that contain entries of database transactions but do not contain
an indicator of the records of a database. App. Br. 16.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding that
Bourbonnais teaches "an indicator of the records of said database," as
recited in claim 7. The Examiner relies upon Bourbonnais' s teaching that
"[a] transaction identifier for a log entry that updates, inserts, or deletes data
is associated with a data manager log entry 1300." Bourbonnais, col. 16, 11.
8-10). The transaction identifiers in Bourbonnais pertain to updates,
insertions, and deletions of data and therefore are "indicator[ s] of the
records" in the database, as broadly recited in claim 7. 3
Furthermore, Bourbonnais explains that "[a] database system is one in
which data is stored, retrieved, and processed." Bourbonnais, col. 1, 11. 12-
13. Likewise, Luniewski teaches that "[a] database management system,
also referred to as a database or database server, allows large volumes of
data to be stored and accessed efficiently and conveniently in a computer
system." Luniewski i-f 4. We observe that, in order to store, retrieve, and
process data in a database, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that there must be some "indicator of the records" in the
database, as broadly recited in claim 7.
3 We note the disputed limitation in claim 7 recites "an indicator," although
"an indicator" is previously recited as being in the data structure of claim 1,
from which claim 7 depends. In the event of further prosecution, the
Examiner may wish to review claim 7 for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
,-r 2.
8
Appeal2014-004169
Application 12/010,414
Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection
of claim 7 as obvious.
Claims 28-31
Appellants argue: "Primak is not directed to databases, but rather is
directed to web servers for hosting web content. Thus, Applicant
respectfully submits that Primak is not analogous art and a skilled person
starting from Luniewski simply would not tum to Primak." App. Br. 18.
Appellants, therefore, appear to argue that Primak is not analogous art
because it is not in the same field of endeavor. However, a reference may
still qualify as analogous art, even if it is not within the same field of
endeavor, if it is "reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved." In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
"A reference is reasonably pertinent if ... it is one which, because of the
matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner finds "Primak teaches updates to
particular content allows the system to change the records in the table to
indicate that the content being updated is currently 'unavailable,' which is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the appellant is
concerned." Ans. 14. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's
findings. Reply Br. 8. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
Primak is analogous art.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants, for the first time, address substantively
the disclosure of paragraph 44 of Primak, cited by the Examiner in the
rejection. Reply Br. 8-9; see Final Act. 9 (citing Primak i-f 44). We find
these belated arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012) ("Any
9
Appeal2014-004169
Application 12/010,414
argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief~ or
is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including
any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board
for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown."); see also
Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) ("[T]he reply brief
[is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the
principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.").
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 28-31.
Conclusion
We sustain the rejections of claims 1, 3, 8, 11-13, 17, 20-22, and 28-
31, as well as the rejection of claims 2, 4--7, 9, 10, 14--16, 18, 19, and 23-27,
for which Appellants do not advance additional persuasive arguments.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10