Ex Parte Akulavenkatavara et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 3, 201613360962 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/360,962 01/30/2012 63675 7590 06/07/2016 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL 24 Greenway Plaza SUITE 1600 HOUSTON, TX 77046-2472 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Prasadarao Akulavenkatavara 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. S VL9201 l 0078US 1 5367 EXAMINER ALMAN!, MOHSEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/07/2016 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): P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PRASADARAO AKULA VENKA TA VARA, AARON I. RENNER, GARY N. JIN, and STEVEN R. PEARSON Appeal2014-008732 1 Application 13/360,962 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 7-18, which are all of the claims pending in this appeal. Br. 1. Claims 1-6 have been canceled. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. Br. 3 Appeal2014-008732 Application 13/360,962 Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a computer program product and system for determining whether a standby database is synchronized with a primary database. See Abstract. In particular, upon selecting a set of pages in the primary database and generating checksum values for each page, a verification manager 510 compares each of the checksum values with a respective checksum value calculated from a corresponding page in the standby database to verify synchronization. Spec. i-f 38. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 7 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 7. A computer program product to verify that a primary database is synchronized with a standby database during a replication process therebetween, the computer program product comprising: a computer=readable storage medium having computer= readable program code embodied therewith, the computer- readable program code comprising: computer-readable program code configured to receive a transaction log at the standby database from the primary database, the transaction log specifying a first one or more page checksum values for a first set of pages on the primary database; computer-readable program code configured to compute a second one or more page checksum values for a second set of pages on the standby database, wherein each of the one or more page checksum values for the first and second sets of pages is computed based on a respective page of the first and second sets of pages on the primary database and the standby database, respectively; and 2 Appeal2014-008732 Application 13/360,962 computer-readable program code configured to compare each of the first one or more page checksum values against each of the corresponding second one or more page checksum values to determine, without having to halt a replication process between the primary database and the standby database, whether the standby database is synchronized with the primary database. Watanabe et al. ("Watanabe") Prior Art Relied Upon US 2008/0208923 Al Aug.28,2008 Polyzois et al., Evaluation of Remote Backup Algorithms for Transaction- Processing Systems, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 423--49, Sept. 1994. ("Polyzois") Rejections on Appeal Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections: Claims 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 3--4. Claims 7-10 and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Watanabe. Final Act. 5-12. Claims 11, 12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Watanabe and Polyzois. Final Act. 12-18. 3 Appeal2014-008732 Application 13/360,962 ANALYSIS We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7-11. 2 Non-Statutory Re} ection The Examiner has rejected claims 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 3--4. Appellants present no arguments pertaining to this ground of rejection; we, therefore, summarily sustain the rejection. 3 Anticipation Rejection Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in finding Watanabe discloses "comput[ing] a second one or more page checksum values for a second set of pages on the standby database, wherein each of the one or more page checksum values for the first and second sets of pages is computed based on a respective page of the first and second sets 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 27, 2014), the Answer (mailed June 4, 2014), and the original Specification (filed January 30, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). 3 See MPEP § 1205.02, 9th ed., Rev. 7, Nov. 2015 ("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner's answer."). 4 Appeal2014-008732 Application 13/360,962 ofpages on the primary database and the standby database, " as recited in independent claim 7? Appellants argue Watanabe does not describe computing page checksum values. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants contend Watanabe discloses verifying data without depending on the storage positions of the data to exclude computing page checksum values. Br. 8 (citing Watanabe i-f 10). Appellants further assert page checksum values must reflect the storage position of the physical data on the storage device. Br. 8. Appellants moreover contend Watanabe describes solely calculating the checksum of the result of the execution of a structured query language (SQL) statement, not of "a respective page," as recited in the claim. Br. 9-10 (citing Watanabe Fig. 14, i-fi-157, 62). These arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note the first argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 7, which does not recite that the checksum is dependent on the storage position of the physical data on the storage device. The Examiner finds Watanabe discloses "calculating a checksum of the data storage area," of both the primary system and the secondary system. Ans. 5 (quoting Watanabe i-fi-1 14, 77) (emphasis omitted). Watanabe further explains the data storage area is split up into areas of a given size, referred to as pages. Watanabe i-f 48. We agree with the Examiner that Watanabe describes physical storage areas in the primary and secondary systems as pages from which checksum values are calculated. Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds Watanabe discloses calculating the checksums of individual pages and tabulating the checksum values, each with corresponding page number, in a data check log. Ans. 5---6 (citing Watanabe i-f 63, Fig. 13). Appellants note Watanabe discloses the 5 Appeal2014-008732 Application 13/360,962 checksum of each page calculated by the checksum calculation means. Br. 9 (citing Watanabe i-f 77). The Examiner additionally finds Watanabe describes calculating the checksum values of results of SQL statements as a separate, independent operation of calculating page checksum values. Ans. 6 (citing Watanabe i-fi-177-78). This finding contradicts Appellants' argument that Watanabe describes solely calculating checksum values of SQL results. App. Br. 9. It follows Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 7. Regarding the rejection of claims 8-10 and 13-16, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments (Br. 12) as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 7 above, claims 8-10 and 13-16 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2013). Obviousness Rejection Regarding the rejection of claims 11, 12, 17, and 18, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments (Br. 10-11) as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 7 above, we sustain the rejection of claims 11, 12, 17, and 18 for the foregoing reasons. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 7-18 as set forth above. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. 6 Appeal2014-008732 Application 13/360,962 AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation