Antani, Snehal S. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2019005443 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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.
11/876,953 10/23/2007 Snehal S. Antani RSW920060220US1_8134-0158 7132
73109 7590 12/30/2020
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
EXAMINER
SHANMUGASUNDARAM, KANNAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SNEHAL S. ANTANI, SOLOMAN J. BARGHOUTHI,
MOHAMMAD N. FAKHAR, SAJAN SANKARAN, and
HARI SHANKAR
____________________

Appeal 2019-005443
Application 11/876,953
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 18–37. Appellant has canceled claims 1–17. Appeal Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies IBM
Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005443
Application 11/876,953

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
As identified by Appellant, this application was the subject of two
previous appeals (Appeal Nos. 2015-007535 (mailed September 25, 2017)
and 2011-009003 (mailed February 6, 2014)). Appeal Br. 1.
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention relates to customized roll
back strategies for databases when a transaction (i.e., client or application) is
requesting access to a database resource that is locked by a different
transaction. Spec. ¶¶ 1–5. The Specification defines a “deadlock” situation
as one in which “two or more competing clients are each waiting for another
to release a resource.” Spec. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, when a
deadlock situation is detected, one transaction (i.e., client) is selected over
the others and is allowed to maintain processing, whereas the non-selected
transactions are “rolled back” such that the resources affected revert back to
the point they were at prior to the start of the aborted transactions. Spec. ¶ 3.
Rather than determining which client to select in a deadlock situation based
on which transaction requires the least overhead to roll back (see Spec. ¶ 4),
a predetermined roll back strategy may be expressed in the transaction
metadata. Spec. ¶ 5.
In a disclosed example, roll back transaction metadata can comprise
one of two states, YIELD and NOT YIELD. Spec. ¶ 33. Table A (Spec.
¶ 34) is illustrative and is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-005443
Application 11/876,953

3

Appellant’s Table A “illustrates several representative outcomes as a
result between two transactions.” Spec. ¶ 33. As shown, for example, if
Transaction A has a roll back strategy in transaction metadata of YIELD and
Transaction B has a roll back strategy of NOT YIELD in transaction
metadata, in a deadlock scenario, Transaction A would roll back. Spec.
¶ 34. However, if both transactions have the same roll back strategy
expressed in transaction metadata, then whichever transaction has the lower
number of locks rolls back. Spec. ¶ 34. As described in the Specification:
If the roll back strategy cannot determine priority of a deadlock
based upon a first metric, e.g., a roll back priority designation
such as YIELD and NOT YIELD, then one or more fallback
factors are considered, such as by evaluating the number of locks
associated with each of the first and second transactions, or by
considering any other reasonable factors.
Appeal 2019-005443
Application 11/876,953

4
Spec. ¶ 40.
Claims 18, 25, and 32 are independent claims. Claim 18 is
representative (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)) of the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in
italics:
18. A computer-implemented method of implementing
database deadlock resolution, comprising:
detecting a deadlock between first and second transactions
with respect to a database;
obtaining transaction metadata that is associated with one
of the first and second transactions and identifies a
predetermined roll back strategy to be used with the one
transaction;
evaluating the identified predetermined roll back strategy
within the transaction metadata;
resolving the deadlock based upon the evaluating;
continuing processing of a preferred one of the first and
second transactions based upon the resolving; and
generating a roll back request to a non-preferred one of the
first and second transactions based upon the resolving.

The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 18–20, 24–27, and 31–34 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Iba et al. (US 5,835,766;
Nov. 10, 1998) (“Iba”). Final Act. 2–5.
2. Claims 21–23, 28–30, and 35–37 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iba and Srivastava et al. (US
2003/0028638 A1; Feb. 6, 2003) (“Srivastava”). Final Act. 6–8.

Appeal 2019-005443
Application 11/876,953

5
ANALYSIS2
Rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The Examiner finds Iba anticipates, inter alia, independent claim 18.
Final Act. 2–3. We begin our analysis with a brief review of Iba.
Iba discloses a Transaction Manager “allocates an identifier to a
global transaction [(i.e., a global transaction identifier)] uniquely so as to
manage global transactions.” Iba, col. 9, ll. 3–4. Iba further discloses the
global transaction identifier comprises a priority portion. Iba, col. 12, ll. 26–
27 (“a priority portion [is] provided inside a global transaction identifier”).
Additionally, Iba describes the priority portion as having two standards (i.e.,
parts)—a first standard depends upon a “predetermined classification” of the
transaction and the second standard is a transaction counter (“a unique
counter within global transactions”). Iba, col. 12, ll. 35–45. When a
deadlock situation occurs, the transaction to be canceled (i.e., rolled back) is
selected based on the contents of the global transaction identifier,
particularly the priority portion. Iba, col. 12, ll. 26–67; see also Iba,
Figs. 13A, 13B. More particularly, Iba describes resolving a deadlock
situation wherein the transaction with the lower priority (i.e., a first standard
or classification) is canceled, or rolled back. Iba, col. 12, ll. 46–52. If there
are a plurality of transactions having the same classification (i.e., priority),
the deadlock is resolved by the second standard—the transaction having the
higher counter value is selected to be rolled back. Iba, col. 12, ll. 53–60.

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
February 7, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed July 9, 2019 (“Reply
Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 31, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Final
Office Action, mailed September 20, 2018 (“Final Act.”), from which this
Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2019-005443
Application 11/876,953

6
As we explained in our earlier decision, “[b]ecause the global
transaction identifier provides information (i.e., data) about the transaction
(e.g., its predetermined classification and a counter allocated in the order in
which the transaction was generated), Iba’s global transaction identifier is
transaction metadata.” 2015-007535 Decision 8; see also Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2163(II)(A)(3)(a) (9th ed., Rev. 10.2019,
June 2020) § 706.07(h)(XI)(A) (indicating that “a Board decision in an
application is the ‘law of the case,’ and is thus controlling in that application
and any subsequent, related application”). In addition, we noted that “the
priority portion is included within the global transaction identifier and is
used to specify the roll back strategy.” 2015-007535 Decision 8 (citing Iba,
col. 12, ll. 26–67). Accordingly, we determined that “Iba discloses that the
roll back strategy is specified in, or may be derived from, the transaction
metadata.” 2015-007535 Decision 8 (emphasis added).
In rejecting claim 18, the Examiner finds Iba’s description of a
priority portion of a transaction identifier comprising a first and second
standard, which are used to resolve a deadlock situation describes the
claimed obtaining transaction metadata that “identifies a predetermined roll
back strategy to be used with the one transaction.” Final Act. 3 (citing Iba,
col. 12, 46–60).
Appellant asserts that Iba fails to disclose obtaining transaction
metadata that “identifies a predetermined roll back strategy.” Appeal
Br. 10–16 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 2–8. Instead, Appellant argues that
Iba discloses that a roll back strategy may be derived from the transaction
metadata. Appeal Br. 10–16; Reply Br. 2–8. More specifically, Appellant
identifies an example described in the Specification in which a roll back
Appeal 2019-005443
Application 11/876,953

7
strategy “YIELD” may be specified in XML file. Appeal Br. 12 (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 27–29). Appellant argues that, in contrast, Iba describes an
example in which a transaction may have a classification of “1” and a unique
counter of “00001234,” but that neither of these are roll back strategies.
Appeal Br. 11–13 (citing Iba, col. 12, ll. 46–67, Fig. 13B). Moreover,
Appellant asserts Iba describes a roll back method in which a first standard
(e.g., a classification, such as “1”) is compared to the classification of
another transaction to determine which transaction (i.e., the one having a
lower classification) is rolled back. Appeal Br. 13 (citing Iba, col. 12, ll. 46–
67. Appellant argues that “this identification of the rollback strategy cannot
be based solely on the information provided with the single transaction.
Instead, it is based upon a comparison of the priorities values. Therefore,
the metadata provided with the transaction is insufficient, in itself, to identify
the rollback strategy.” Appeal Br. 13.
Further, Appellant explains that if both of the deadlocked transactions
in Iba have the same classification (i.e., the same priority), then a second
comparison of the counters is performed and the transaction having the
largest counter is rolled back. Appeal Br. 13–14. Appellant again argues
that “a determination” of the roll back strategy cannot be determined using
only the information provided within the single transaction, but rather based
on a comparison of transaction metadata from the deadlocked transactions.
Appeal Br. 13–14. Thus, Appellant argues “the rollback strategy is
undetermined until after the classification and counter of T1 [(the first
transaction)] is evaluated against the classification and counter of [the
second transaction].” Appeal Br. 14–15 (emphasis omitted). Accordingly,
Appeal 2019-005443
Application 11/876,953

8
Appellant asserts Iba teaches a roll back strategy is derived from, and not
identified by, the transaction metadata. Appeal Br. 15–16.
As Appellant points out in explaining how the claimed method
operates, a roll back strategy (e.g., YIELD) for a transaction is specified in
the transaction metadata. However, the particular deadlock outcome is
dependent upon the roll back strategy specified the two deadlocked
transactions. That is, even though a transaction may have a specified roll
back strategy of YIELD, the deadlock outcome depends on what the
specified roll back strategy of the other transaction is. See Spec. ¶ 34. As
set forth in Table A, the deadlock outcome could be either that the first
transaction rolls back or that the second transaction rolls back if its specified
roll back strategy is also YIELD and it has a lower number of locks. Spec.
¶ 34; see also Spec. ¶ 40. Thus, similar to Iba, a determination of the roll
back strategy cannot be determined using only the information provided
within the single transaction, but rather based on a comparison of transaction
metadata from the deadlocked transactions.
In addition, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, in the Specification,
YIELD and NOT YIELD are not specifically roll back strategies, rather,
“using YIELD and NOT YIELD [are used] as roll back strategy
designations.” Spec. ¶ 25 (emphasis added). As the Examiner notes, the
logic necessary to carry out a particular roll back strategy is not recited in
the claim language. Ans. 8–9. Instead, the transaction metadata includes
information used to indicate or derive a roll back strategy.
Moreover, we note the claim recites obtaining transaction metadata
from both a first and second transaction, identifying a predetermined roll
back strategy from the transaction metadata, evaluating the identified
Appeal 2019-005443
Application 11/876,953

9
predetermined roll back strategy, and then resolving the deadlock based
upon the evaluating. It is clear that the roll back strategy is based on the
separate indications (i.e., predetermined roll back strategies) in both
transactions. For example, the transaction metadata of both transactions are
evaluated to see if they have the same or different indications (e.g., YIELD
or NOT YIELD) such that the deadlock may be resolved by implementing a
roll back based on the evaluation.
When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the
Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, reading claim language in light of the
Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We
are mindful, however, that limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
We disagree with Appellant that the broadest reasonable
interpretation, consistent with the Specification, of the claim term “identifies
a predetermined roll back strategy” (emphasis added) should be so narrow as
to exclude information contained within the transaction metadata used to
indicate or derive a predetermined roll back strategy to be used with the one
transaction. See also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
1583 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claim interpretation excluding the preferred
embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive
evidentiary support).
Consistent with our construction, we find Iba discloses, inter alia,
“obtaining transaction metadata that . . . identifies a predetermined roll back
strategy to be used with the one transaction,” as recited in claim 18.
Appeal 2019-005443
Application 11/876,953

10
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). For similar reasons, we also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 25 and 32, which
recite commensurate limitations and were not argued separately. In
addition, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 20, 24, 26, 27,
31, 33, and 34, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not
argued separately. See Appeal Br. 9 (“claims 19–20, 24–27, and 31–34
stand or fall together with independent claim 18”); see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant asserts that Srivastava fails to cure the alleged deficiencies
of Iba with respect to independent claim 18. Appeal Br. 17. Moreover,
Appellant concedes that “claims 21–23, 28–30, and 35–37 stand or fall
together with independent claim 18.” Appeal Br. 17.
As discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 18, we
disagree that Iba is deficient. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 21–23, 28–30, and 35–
37. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18–20, 24–27,
and 31–34 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21–23, 28–30,
and 35–37 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2019-005443
Application 11/876,953

11
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
18–20, 24–
27, 31–34
102(b) Iba 18–20, 24–
27, 31–34

21–23, 28–
30, 35–37
103(a) Iba, Srivastava 21–23, 28–
30, 35–37

Overall
Outcome
18–37

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED