Fei Zhou et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 13, 2020

14208958 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2020)

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.
14/208,958 03/13/2014 Fei Zhou 2058.940US1 4834
50400 7590 04/13/2020
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
VO, CECILE H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2020 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FEI ZHOU, SARIKA IYER, and GRAHAM IVEY
Appeal 2018-008722
Application 14/208,958
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–20, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicants” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sybase,
Inc., which according to Appellant is a subsidiary of SAP SE. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008722
Application 14/208,958

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “managing database logging,” more
particularly “to reduce log contention by batching log record transfers to the
log.” Spec. Abstract, ¶ 1.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method of managing database logging, the method
comprising:
receiving by a user task executing in a database
management system on a database server, a command to
manipulate a portion of a database managed by the database
management system;
obtaining a lock on the portion of the database;
creating a first log record in a first private log cache
associated with the user task, the first log record recording a data
manipulation to the portion of the database;
enqueuing, in response to at least one of the first private
log cache becoming full or a command to commit a transaction
being handled by the user task, the first log record in a queue
before writing the first log record to an in-memory version of the
transaction log that is distinct from the queue, the enqueuing of
the first log record in the queue including adding, to the queue, a
pointer to a memory location of the first log record in the first
private log cache, the queue shared among a plurality of tasks
executing in the database management system and the queue
configured to store references to log records from one or more
transactions of the plurality of tasks before such log records are
written to an in-memory version of a transaction log;
releasing the lock on the portion of the database after
enqueuing the first log record to the queue;
Appeal 2018-008722
Application 14/208,958

3
writing the first log record to the in-memory version of the
transaction log after enqueuing the first log record to the queue;
and
writing the first log record to a disk version of the
transaction log to commit the data manipulation to the database.
REJECTION
Claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over the combination of Shalla (US 8,965,861 B1; Feb. 24,
2015), Sherman (US 5,832,508; Nov. 3, 1998), and Schreter (US 8,768,891
B2; July 1, 2014). Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “enqueuing . . . the first log record in a queue before
writing the first log record to an in-memory version of the transaction log
that is distinct from the queue.” Claim 1 further recites “writing the first log
record to the in-memory version of the transaction log” and “writing the first
log record to a disk version of the transaction log.” Independent claims 9
and 17 recite commensurate limitations.
The Examiner determines that Schreter’s “disk/database log is
interpreted as ‘an in-memory version of the transaction log that is distinct
from the queue’.” Ans. 4.
However, we agree with Appellant that Schreter’s “putting a record in
an in-memory queue before writing the record to disk is not the same as
[claim 1’s requirement of] putting the record in a queue before writing the
record to an in-memory version of a transaction log.” Appeal Br. 13. That is
particularly true here where the claim expressly differentiates between an
“in-memory version of the transaction log” and a “disk version of the
transaction log.” Thus, the Examiner has not shown that Schreter teaches
Appeal 2018-008722
Application 14/208,958

4
the claimed steps of putting the first log record in (1) a queue, (2) an in-
memory version of the transaction log, and (3) a disk version of the
transaction log, nor that Shalla or Sherman make up for this deficiency,
whether alone or in combination.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,
9, and 17, and their dependent claims 2–7, 10–15, and 18–20.
DECISION
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–15,
17–20
103 Shalla, Sherman,
Schreter
1–7, 9–15,
17–20
REVERSED