Ex Parte Yankov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

12961506 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/961,506 12/07/2010
62730 7590 05/27/2016
SAP SE
3410 HILL VIEW A VENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
FILIP Y ANKOV
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.
2010P00384US 9300
EXAMINER
REYES, MARIELA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM
GIPinhouse@sap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VANIA SLA VCHOV A DIMITROV A and
IV AN DIMITROV DIMITROV
Appeal2014-005635
Application 12/961,506
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-20, which are all the claims
pending in the present patent application. (App. Br. l; Final Act. 1-22.) 1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec."), filed Dec. 7, 2010; Appeal
Brief("App. Br.") filed Aug. 7, 2013 and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed
Apr. 6, 2014. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Feb.
6, 2014, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed
Mar. 6, 2013.
Appeal2014-005635
Application 12/961,506
Appellants' Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns articles of manufacture,
computer systems, and methods for optimizing data writes to file systems.
The system monitors the amount of data (transaction information) to be
stored (persisted) on a file system, collects the data (sets of records) in a
buffer, and determines if the load surpasses a threshold indicating a high
transaction load. If the transaction load is high, then the system flushes the
buffer to the file system (performs a batch dump). Otherwise, the system
writes the sets of records one at a time without a mediation of the buffer.
(Spec. i-fi-f l, 3--4; Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. An article of manufacture including a non-
transitory computer readable storage medium to tangibly store
instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the
computer to:
monitor a current load of transaction information to be
persisted on a file system, the transaction information
comprising a set of records committed to the file system;
collect the set of records at a buffer;
flush the buffer to the file system when the current load
of the transaction information is above a predefined limit
indicating a high transaction load; and
write the committed set of records one by one without a
mediation of the buffer when the current load of the
transaction information is below a predefined limit indicating
a low transaction load.
2
Appeal2014-005635
Application 12/961,506
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Okmianski et al. (US 7,165,129 Bl, issued Jan.16, 2007)
("Okmianski").
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants'
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that Okmianski discloses "writ[ing]
the committed set of records one by one without a mediation of the buff er
when the current load of the transaction information is below a predefined
limit indicating a low transaction load" within the meaning of Appellants'
claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 8 and 15?
ANALYSIS
Appellants do not separately argue independent claims 8 and 15, or
dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20. (App. Br. 9-10.) Accordingly, we
select independent claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims
1-20. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We adopt to the extent consistent with our analysis (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2-3), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2--4) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We
3
Appeal2014-005635
Application 12/961,506
concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we
provide the following for emphasis.
Appellants contend that Okmianski does not disclose the disputed
features of representative claim 1, namely, "writ[ing] the committed set of
records one by one without a mediation of the buffer when the current load
of the transaction information is below a predefined limit indicating a low
transaction load" (claim 1). (See App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 1-2.)
Specifically, Appellants contend that the recited language- "'one by one
without a mediation of the buffer'" (App. Br. 7 (quoting claim 1))- "means
the records are not collected in the buffer but immediately written to the file
system." (App. Br. 7.) Appellants further contend that Okmianski always
buffers data and accordingly, always flushes data from the buffer. (App. Br.
7-8.)
We find Appellants' contentions unpersuasive of Examiner error. As
explained by the Examiner, Appellants' interpretation of the disputed claim
language is at odds with the express language of the claim and Appellants'
disclosure in the Specification. (Ans. 3--4.) Claim 1 recites buffering all
transaction information/set of records committed to the file system, in that
claim 1 recites "transaction information compris[ es] a set of records
committed to the file system" and the computer "collect[ s] the set of records
at a buffer" (claim 1 ). Further, Appellants' Specification explains that, in at
least one embodiment, all data is buffered -
FIG. 1 represents a block diagram of a computer system
100 and transactions 110 forming a transaction load, "passing"
through the system 100. An optimizer 120 works as an intelligent
processing unit to determine the best possible time to flush all
collected transactions 110 to the file system when operating
4
Appeal2014-005635
Application 12/961,506
under high load, or flushing each modification separately under
low load.
(Spec. i-f 9 (emphasis added).)
To the extent Appellants argue that certain records are not buffered
(see App. Br. 7 (supra)), this argument is not commensurate with the scope
of Appellants' claim 1. The issue, then, is not whether Okmianski buffers
transaction data. Okmianski discloses flushing data immediately (without
holding it) when a transaction rate (load) is low and holding/collecting
transaction data (mediating the flushing of transaction data) when the
transaction rate is high. (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2--4; Okmianski col. 2, 11. 35-
65).) The Examiner therefore finds, and we agree, that Okmianski discloses
immediately writing (flushing) the transaction information (committed set of
records) "without a mediation of the buff er" when the transaction
information load is below a predefined limit.
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection of representative claim 1,
independent claims 8 and 15, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20,
not separately argued with particularity (supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
5
Appeal2014-005635
Application 12/961,506
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
6