Eric P. Fried et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

12957937 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019)

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.
12/957,937 12/01/2010 ERIC P. FRIED AUS920100405US1 2073
124677 7590 09/03/2019
Russell Ng PLLC (IBM AUS)
8729 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100
Austin, TX 78757
EXAMINER
SOMERS, MARC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2019 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):
stephanie@russellnglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC P. FRIED, RAJEEV MISHRA, LANCE W. RUSSELL, and
MURALI VADDAGIRI
____________

Appeal 2018-007903
Application 12/957,937
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2018-007903
Application 12/957,937

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 7–19, 21, and 23–29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 7, 13, and 23 are independent. Claim 7 recites a program
product, claim 13 recites a data processing system, and claim 23 recites a
method. Given that claims 7, 13, and 23 recite similar functional limitations,
we identify claim 23, the method claim, as illustrative.
23. A method of detecting corruption of a shared data
record in a database subject to contemporaneous read and write
access by multiple data processing system requesters, the
method comprising:
a data processing system requester reading, from a
database, a shared data record subject to contemporaneous read
and write access by multiple data processing system requesters,
the shared data record including a payload and a first checksum;
the data processing system requester calculating a second
checksum of the payload of the shared data record obtained by
reading the shared data record;
thereafter, the data processing system requester again
reading the shared data record from the database based on the
first and second checksums not being equal, said shared data
record including a third checksum of the payload of the shared
data record, and calculating a fourth checksum of the payload
of the shared data record obtained by again reading the shared
data record; and
the data processing system requester detecting that the
shared data record of the database is corrupt and handling the
shared data record as corrupt based on the second and fourth
checksums being equal.

Appeal 2018-007903
Application 12/957,937

3
Prior Art
Chen US 6,269,374 B1 Jul. 31, 2001
Cortright US 2006/0173932 A1 Aug. 3, 2006
Agarwal US 7,269,706 B2 Sep. 11, 2007
Kalos US 7,289,998 B2 Oct. 30, 2007
Meng US 7,441,159 B2 Oct. 31, 2008

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 7–19, 21, and 23–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cortright and Meng.
Claims 9, 15, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cortright, Meng, and Agarwal.
Claims 11, 12, 17, 18, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cortright, Meng, Kalos, and Chen.

ANALYSIS
§ 101 Rejection of claims 7–19, 21, and 23–29
The Examiner finds that the “claims are directed to the abstract idea of
a method of checksum comparison and evaluation,” and that “checksum
comparison and evaluation . . . is a mathematical algorithm.” Final Act. 2–
3; see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014)
(Describing the two-step framework “for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts.”).
After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this
case, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101.
Appeal 2018-007903
Application 12/957,937

4
2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Memorandum”). Under the
Memorandum, the Office first looks to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th Ed.,
Rev.08.2017, 2018).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, does the Office then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
Step 2A Prong One
Appellants contend that “Claim 23 is directed to a method that
employs checksum calculations ‘to detect[] corruption of a shared data
record in a database subject to contemporaneous read and write access by
multiple data processing system requesters,’” which “is not directed to a
patent-ineligible abstract idea or mathematical formula.” App. Br. 9. We
find Appellants’ argument persuasive and do not agree with the Examiner
that claim 23 is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept.
Appeal 2018-007903
Application 12/957,937

5
Claim 23 recites, “A method of detecting corruption of a shared data
record in a database subject to contemporaneous read and write access by
multiple data processing system requesters,” “a data processing system
requester reading, from a database, a shared data record subject to
contemporaneous read and write access by multiple data processing system
requesters, the shared data record including a payload and a first checksum,”
“the data processing system requester calculating a second checksum of the
payload of the shared data record obtained by reading the shared data
record,” “thereafter, the data processing system requester again reading the
shared data record from the database based on the first and second
checksums not being equal, said shared data record including a third
checksum of the payload of the shared data record, and calculating a fourth
checksum of the payload of the shared data record obtained by again reading
the shared data record,” and “the data processing system requester detecting
that the shared data record of the database is corrupt and handling the
shared data record as corrupt based on the second and fourth checksums
being equal.”
The Examiner finds that the claim recites “the concept of checksum
comparison and evaluation which is a mathematical algorithm.” Final Act.
3. Under the first prong of Step 2A, the claim recites two calculating steps,
but the Examiner does not persuasively explain how the claim expressly
recites “mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or
mathematical calculations.” See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. In
particular, the Examiner does not persuasively explain how “calculating” the
second and fourth checksums describes a mathematical procedure or formula
for calculating the checksums. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(IV).
Appeal 2018-007903
Application 12/957,937

6
However, even considering the two individual steps of “calculating”
the checksums as a mathematical concept, we still continue our analysis
under the second prong.
Step 2A Prong Two
Turning now to the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether
any additional claim elements “integrate the exception into a practical
application,” such as “an improvement in the functioning of a computer.”
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. “When finding that a claim is directed to
such an improvement . . . the specification should disclose sufficient details
such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed
invention as providing an improvement, and the claim itself must reflect the
improvement in technology.” MPEP § 2016.04(a).
Here, the specification discloses that “the process for reading a shared
data record depicted in Figure 7 permits validation of the shared data record
accessed by a requester without the mutual exclusion (mutex) locking or
other similar infrastructure commonly used to synchronize access to shared
data records.” Spec. ¶ 50; Fig. 7. As shown in block 710, “if the calculated
checksum does not match the checksum read from cluster configuration
database 200, then two possibilities exists: (1) the data record is in the
process of being updated or (2) data record 302 is corrupt.” Spec. ¶ 48; Fig.
7. “To differentiate these cases, operating system 122 determines at block
720 whether or not the calculated checksum is equal to the [previously
calculated] checksum.” Id. If “operating system 122 determines at block
720 that the calculated checksum matches the [previously calculated]
checksum, then data record 302 is not the target of an ongoing update and is
instead corrupted, as indicated at block 722.” Spec. ¶ 49; Fig. 7.
Appeal 2018-007903
Application 12/957,937

7
This disclosed improvement to computer functionality is recited in
claim 23 as a “method of detecting corruption of a shared data record in a
database subject to contemporaneous read and write access by multiple data
processing system requesters,” and “detecting that the shared data record of
the database is corrupt and handling the shared data record as corrupt based
on the second and fourth checksums being equal.” Here, the claim recites
detecting and handling a shared data record as corrupt based on the
calculated checksums being equal, which is a practical application of the
calculated checksums as claimed. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
In sum, although the claim recites two separate calculating steps, the
claim as a whole includes additional elements that integrate the calculating
steps into the practical application of detecting and handling a corrupt shared
data record in a database subject to contemporaneous read and write access.
We are not persuaded that claim 23 is directed to a judicial exception to
patent-eligible subject matter. Such a claim does not need to undergo the
full eligibility analysis, and thus we do not analyze the claim under Step 2B.
See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir.
2016); MPEP § 2106.06(a)-(b).
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 23 and its dependent claims
24–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Independent claims 7 and 13 recite limitations similar to those recited
in claim 23, which we find patent-eligible. We do not sustain the rejection
of independent claims 7 and 13, and their corresponding dependent claims
8–12, 14–19, and 21, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Appeal 2018-007903
Application 12/957,937

8
§ 103 Rejection of claims 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 29 as
unpatentable over Cortright and Meng
Independent claims 7, 13, and 23 recite “detecting that the shared data
record of the database is corrupt and handling the shared data record as
corrupt based on the second and fourth checksums being equal.”
Appellants contend that the combination of Cortright and Meng does
not disclose or suggest “handling the shared data record as corrupt based on
the second and fourth checksums being equal” as claimed. App. Br. 16.
According to Appellants, data corruption is invariably detected in the prior
art by a mismatch of checksums. Id.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Cortright and Meng
teaches that “a determination as to if the same value was read twice (second
and fourth checksums being equal) would indicate that the data was
probably not corrupted during data transmission since the system read the
same value for the data twice in a row and thus the data value itself that is
stored is not correct.” Ans. 12–13 (citing Meng, 11:51–56, 13:18–20).
Column 11 of Meng discloses performing a read operation to transfer a data
block from a hard disk to application programs, generating a third checksum
value for the data block, and comparing it to the first checksum value.
Meng, 11:51–56. Column 13 of Meng discloses comparing third and fourth
checksum values “to each other or to the first and/or second checksum
values to detect corruption” in the data block. Id. at 13:18–20.
Appellants contend that the cited sections of Meng do not support the
Examiner’s finding that Meng detects corruption when the second and fourth
checksums are equal. See App. Br. 16. We agree with Appellants. Meng
teaches detecting data corruption “when a checksum mismatch occurs,” but
Appeal 2018-007903
Application 12/957,937

9
does not teach detecting data corruption when a checksum match occurs.
Meng, Abstract; see id. at 3:39–43, 4:35–38, 9:62–67, 11:34–42 (“When the
first checksum and the second checksum value are equivalent, there is a
reduced chance that data block 266 was corrupted”), 11:43–50 (“When a
checksum mismatch occurs . . . there is an increased chance that data block
266 was corrupted”).
The Examiner has not established that the prior art teaches “handling
the shared data record as corrupt based on the second and fourth checksums
being equal.” Rather, the Examiner’s finding establishes what Appellants
have already admitted, namely, that the prior art invariably detects data
corruption by a mismatch of checksums. See App. Br. 16. On this record,
the only teaching of detecting corruption based on checksums being equal is
found in Appellants’ specification. The Examiner’s finding is based on
impermissible hindsight from Appellants’ specification. The Examiner does
not provide persuasive evidence showing that the combination of Cortright
and Meng teaches “handling the shared data record as corrupt based on the
second and fourth checksums being equal” as recited in independent claims
7, 13, and 23.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21,
23, 24, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cortright and
Meng.

§ 103 Rejection of claims 9, 15, and 25 as unpatentable over Cortright,
Meng, and Agarwal
The Examiner does not find that Agarwal teaches “handling the
shared data record as corrupt based on the second and fourth checksums
Appeal 2018-007903
Application 12/957,937

10
being equal” as recited in independent claims 7, 13, and 23. See Final Act.
11-12.
We do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 9, 15, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cortright, Meng, and Agarwal.

§ 103 Rejection of claims 11, 12, 17, 18, 27, and 28 as unpatentable over
Cortright, Meng, Kalos, and Chen
The Examiner does not find that either Kalos or Chen teaches
“handling the shared data record as corrupt based on the second and fourth
checksums being equal” as recited in independent claims 7, 13, and 23. See
Final Act. 13–14.
We do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 11, 12, 17, 18, 27,
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cortright, Meng, Kalos,
and Chen.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

REVERSED