10375083 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2010)

Ex Parte Arpirez

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 28, 2010

10375083 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JULIO CESAR ARPIREZ ____________________ Appeal 2009-004890 Application 10/375,083 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Decided: June 28, 2010 ____________________ Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-004890 Application 10/375,083 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-8, 20-30, and 38-40. Claims 9-19 and 31-37 have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008). We REVERSE. Introduction According to Appellant, the invention is a system and method that executes software using a transactional unit comprised of transactional subunits to enable a system to return to its pre-execution state if a failure in the software occurs (Spec. 1, [0003] and Spec. 2, [0005]). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A method for processing a transactional unit comprised of transactional subunits that are executable, the method comprising: receiving an identifier of a transactional unit along with parameters for the transactional unit, wherein the transactional unit is comprised of transactional subunits; determining the transactional subunits for the transactional unit using a markup language file for the transactional unit, the markup language file including predefined subunit tags which identify the transactional subunits; and associating at least one parameter for the transactional unit with a transactional subunit; and Appeal 2009-004890 Application 10/375,083 3 executing the transactional subunits and storing an indication of which transactional subunits have completed execution. Prior Art Ho US 2002/0042849 A1 Apr. 11, 2002 Davis US 6,920,608 B1 Jul. 19, 2005 (filed May 21, 1999) Ozzie US 6,941,510 B1 Sep. 6, 2005 (filed Jun. 6, 2000) Rejections Claims 1-6, 20-28, and 38-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis and Ozzie. (Ans. 3-7). Claims 7, 8, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis, Ozzie, and Ho. (Ans. 7-9). GROUPING OF CLAIMS (1) Appellant argues independent claims 1, 20, and 23, and their dependencies 2-6, 21, 22, 24-28, and 38-40 respectively as a collective group on the basis of limitations recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 20 and 23 (Br. 5-8). We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim and therefore, treat claims 2-6, 20-28, and 38-40 as standing or falling with representative claim 1. (3) Appellant argues claims 7, 8, 29, and 30 collectively as a group on the basis of claim 1 (id. at 8). We will, therefore, treat claims 7, 8, 29, and 30 as standing or falling with representative claim 1. We accept Appellant’s grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2009-004890 Application 10/375,083 4 ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-6, 20-28, and 38-40 Appellant asserts their invention is not obvious over Davis and Ozzie because Ozzie does not teach “executing transactional subunits and storing an indication of which transactional subunits have completed execution” (App. Br. 7-8). Specifically, Appellant contends Table 19 of Ozzie, cited by the Examiner as teaching this feature, contains a set of pointers but does not teach an interface that stores or indicates which transactions have already been executed (App. Br. 7). The Examiner finds Ozzie teaches since read-write and read-only transactions, that are built on primitives that insure consistency in multiple processes or computers (Ans. 10). The Examiner finds for read-write transactions, the consistency is provided for a set of database read and write operations (id.). When a region is changed as part of a transaction, it is kept in a “locked” state until the transaction is committed or aborted (id.). Each transaction also stores a “before image” of the modified regions (id.). Thus, according to the Examiner, since a transaction comprises multiple transactional subunits and the operations or regions are stored until the transaction is completed or finished, an indication of which transactional subunits have completed execution is stored (Ans. 10-11). Issue 1: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding Ozzie teaches “executing the transactional subunits and storing an indication of which transactional subunits have completed execution?” Appeal 2009-004890 Application 10/375,083 5 FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Appellant’s Invention (1) A transactional unit can be a grouping of the computer programs (Spec. 4, [0018]). A transactional subunit can be software elements configured to do one or more functions (id.). Ozzie (2) Ozzie teaches a method and system for storage and retrieval of information that has been encoded in Extended markup Langauge (XML) (col. 1, § Field of the Invention). (3) The storage manager supports both read-write and read-only transactions built on DSM synchronization primitives that insure consistency in multiple processes or computers. Each transaction stores a "before image" of the regions that are modified. Thus, the regions can be returned to their previous state if the transaction is aborted. Read-write transactions ensure atomicity and consistency of a set of database read and write operations. Each region that is changed as part of a transaction will be kept in a "locked" state until the transaction is committed or aborted. Read-only transactions ensure that multiple read operations are consistent and keep all read regions in a "read state" until it is finished. (Col. 18, l. 52 – col. 19, l. 5). Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4) A transaction is defined as a “discrete activity within a computer system” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary 526 (5th ed. 2002)). Appeal 2009-004890 Application 10/375,083 6 ANALYSIS Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings regarding Ozzie. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction 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). Thus, we find a transactional unit to be a unit that conducts a discrete activity within the computer system (FF 4) and a transactional subunit to be a part of the transactional unit (see preambles of claims 1, 20, and 23). We find Ozzie describes keeping regions that have been changed as part of a transaction are kept in a “locked” or “read” state until a transaction is completed or stopped to prevent other operations from seeing the changes (FF 3). However, we find a region being kept in a “locked” or “read” state is not storing or providing an indication of which transactional subunits have completed execution – it is an indication of which regions have been modified by a transaction. Accordingly, we find Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in finding Ozzie describes “executing the transactional subunits and storing an indication of which transactional subunits have completed execution” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 20 and 23. Appeal 2009-004890 Application 10/375,083 7 ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 7, 8, 29, and 30 Claims 7, 8, 29, and 30 depend from claims 1 and 23. For the reasons set forth above and because the Examiner has not shown how Ho cures the deficiencies of the Ozzie reference, we find Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in finding Davis, Ozzie and Ho teach the invention as recited in claims 7, 8, 29, and 30. CONCLUSION Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in concluding claims 1, 20, and 23 are obvious over Davis and Ozzie. Claims 2-6, 21, 22, 24-28, and 38-40 depend from representative and independent claims 1 and 23. Accordingly, Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1- 6, 21, 22, 24-28, and 38-40 for obviousness over Davis and Ozzie. Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in concluding claims 7, 8, 29, and 30 are obvious over Davis, Ozzie, and Ho and thus, in rejecting these claims for obviousness. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 20-28, and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Davis and Ozzie is Reversed. Appeal 2009-004890 Application 10/375,083 8 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Davis, Ozzie, and Ho is Reversed. REVERSED rwk HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD MAIL STOP 35 FORT COLLINS CO 80528