Ex Parte Auer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 30, 201311045547 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/045,547 01/28/2005 Wolfgang F.X. Auer 2004P00783US 2121 52025 7590 07/31/2013 SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC 50 LOCUST AVENUE NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 EXAMINER ARJOMANDI, NOOSHA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2167 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/31/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte WOLFGANG F.X. AUER, JUERGEN W. AURISCH, and MARKUS J. STAUSBERG ____________________ Appeal 2011-003615 Application 11/045,547 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-003615 Application 11/045,547 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 22-23, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Appellants’ invention is directed to systems and methods for collision resolution in an asynchronous database system in which data may be manipulated concurrently at one or more participating databases. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A method performed by a database system including a plurality of client databases and a master database, each client database having a subset of data from the master database, the method comprising: receiving, by a processor, a data change request message from a requesting client database, the data change request message including change information identifying a proposed change, row identification information, and a before image; and comparing, by the processor, the row identification information and the before image to corresponding information in the master database to identify a conflict; wherein the data change request message is an update request and the comparing indicates a conflict, the method further comprising: 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed July 1, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 11, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sep. 22, 2010), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Aug. 11, 2009). Appeal 2011-003615 Application 11/045,547 3 ignoring, by the processor, further messages that are from the requesting client database and associated with a reference data row from the master database until an acknowledgement message is received from the requesting client database; wherein the acknowledgement message acknowledges receipt of a refresh message that includes the reference data row from the master database. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Erickson Morrison US 6,892,210 B1 US 7,149,759 B2 May 10, 2005 Dec. 12, 2006 REJECTIONS Claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 22-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Erickson and Morrison. ISSUES 1. Under §103, did the Examiner err in determining that the cited references collectively would have taught or suggested “ignoring, by the processor, further messages that are from the requesting client database and associated with a reference data row from the master database until an acknowledgement message is received from the requesting client database,” within the meaning of independent claims 1, 14, 16, and 23? 2. Under §103, did the Examiner err in determining that the cited references collectively would have taught or suggested, “wherein the information identifying a proposed change includes a row as changed by the master database,” within the meaning of independent claim 11? Appeal 2011-003615 Application 11/045,547 4 3. Under §103, did the Examiner err in determining that the cited references collectively, would have taught or suggested, “wherein distributing a changed portion of the master database to each client database other than the requesting client database comprises not distributing the changed portion of the master database to the requesting client database,” within the meaning of independent claim 22? ANALYSIS Issue (1) The Appellants contend that the cited references, notably Morrison, fail to teach or suggest the limitation at issue. App. Br. 11-12. As noted by the Appellants in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 5), the Examiner in the Answer newly cites Morrison at col. 8, ll. 30-43. Ans. 5-6. We agree with the Appellants that the cited portions of Morrison would not have taught or suggested the limitation at issue. Reply Br. 5-6. The cited portions of Morrison describe a synchronization process that is initiated either as a response to an inquiry, or automatically at predetermined times, which at that time delays any message from the requesting client. Morrison, col. 8 ll. 32-35. The cited portions of Morrison do not teach or suggest delaying a message from the client until an acknowledgement message is received from the requesting client database, as claimed. Independent claims 14, 16, and 23 recite commensurate limitations. Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 14, 16, and 23. Accordingly, we reverse the Appeal 2011-003615 Application 11/045,547 5 Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 14, 16, and 23 and dependent claims 2-5, 7, 10, and 15 which rise therewith. Issue (2) The Appellants contend that the cited references, notably Morrison, would not have taught or suggested “the information identifying a proposed change includes a row as changed by the master database,” as recited in independent claim 11. App. Br. 19. We conclude that the Examiner’s contentions are not supported in the cited references. The Examiner contends that Morrison teaches the limitation at issue (Ans. 14; col. 5, ll. 27-38). However, the Examiner did not establish that the cited portions of Morrison teach or suggest the limitation of “information identifying a proposed change includes a row,” as recited in claim 11. The cited portion of Morrison does not even appear to support the Examiner’s contentions in the Answer regarding a comparison of the indicator column. Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 11. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11 and claims 12 and 13 which rise therewith. Issue (3) Appellants contend that the cited combination of references collectively, would not have taught or suggested “not distributing the changed portion of the master database to the requesting client database,” as recited in claim 22. App. Br. 30-31. We conclude that the Examiner’s contentions are not supported by the cited references. Appeal 2011-003615 Application 11/045,547 6 The Examiner contends that Morrison at column 1, lines 55-59 and column 8, lines 28-43 would have taught or suggested the limitation at issue. Ans. 10, 14. We agree with the Appellants that Morrison describes the opposite of what is recited in claim 22. Namely, Morrison describes distributing a changed portion of the master database to the requesting client database (“propagates the updates to the remote sites 40a – 40c”). App. Br. 32. The other cited portion of Morrison (column 8) does not cure this deficiency. Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 22. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 22-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Erickson and Morrison. DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows. The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 22-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Erickson and Morrison is reversed. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation