Ex Parte Barsness et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13773209 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131773,209 02/21/2013 Eric L. Barsness
46296 7590 09/30/2016
MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
P.O. BOX548
CARTHAGE, MO 64836-0548
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.
ROC920050304US3 5002
EXAMINER
SINGH, AMRESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
derekm@ideaprotect.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC L. BARSNESS and JOHN M. SANTOSUOSSO
Appeal2015-003364
Application 13/773,209
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-003364
Application 13/773,209
STATE~vfENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1---6 constituting all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). 1
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a materialized query table (MQT)
journaling in a computer database system. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor;
a memory coupled to the at least one processor;
a database residing in the memory having data in at least
one base table;
a query optimizer residing in the memory and executed by
the at least one processor with an MQT control file;
a journal receiver residing in the memory and executed by
the at least one processor that maintains data consistency of
duplicate data across multiple servers by processing journal
entries, wherein the journal receiver uses the journal entries to
duplicate materialized query tables (MQTs) on a target system
depending on journal receiver attributes;
a user interface that displays the journal receiver attributes
and allows a user to select a journal receiver attributes flag that
indicates to propagate MQTs based on the MQT control file;
wherein the MQT control file comprises:
1 We note the subject application together with related Application No.
13/773,223 filed February 21, 2013, now abandoned, are continuations of
Application No. 12/153,987, filed March 24, 2008, now abandoned, which
was the subject of Appeal No. 2012-007710 decided March 25, 2015
(Examiner affirmed), and which itself a continuation of Application No.
11/266,736 filed November 3, 2005, now abandoned, which was the subject
of Appeal No. 2010-008691, decided January 2, 2013 (Examiner affirmed).
2
Appeal2015-003364
Application 13/773,209
a propagate files flag for a plurality of target
computers corresponding to each listed MQT in the MQT
control file to indicate whether a journal entry should be
propagated to a corresponding target computer for the
listed MQT; and
one or more metrics for the plurality of target
computers to indicate when propagation should be turned
on and off for any of the plurality of MQTs indicated by
the corresponding propagate files flag; and
a database propagator residing in the memory that
autonomically adjusts journaling of MQTs using the MQT
control file.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Asano
Wong
US 2001/0044817 Al
US 7,039,669 Bl
REJECTION2
Nov. 22, 2001
May 2, 2006
The Examiner rejected claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong and Asano. Ans. 4--7.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
1. The Examiner improperly maps both the (i) journal receiver attribute
flag and (ii) propagate file flag of claim 1 to the same data structure,
i.e., Wong's disable propagation flag. App. Br. 3---6.
2 A provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1---6
over claims 1-3 of then copending Application No. 13/773,223 is moot
because that application has since been abandoned for failure to file a reply
to the Office Action mailed December 31, 2013.
3
Appeal2015-003364
Application 13/773,209
2. "The Examiner has not shown how determining when to share []
resources [as disclosed by Wong] teaches a propagate files flag as
[required by claim 1]." App. Br. 6.
3. In connection with the rejection of claim 2, Wong's teaching of using
metrics to control actions in general falls short of teaching the
propagation and control of MQT files using a flag with metrics. App.
Br. 7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
In connection with contention 1 Appellants argue "[t]o the extent
Wong even teaches MQTs, Wong clearly does not teach this structure with a
journal receiver attributes flag and a propagate files flag as claimed. The
cited structure in Wong does not relate at all to a 'MQT control file' or any
kind of file." App. Br. 4. According to Appellants "[i]t is completely
illogical to cite the same prior art flag for two different flags in the claim
where the two claimed flags are different flags that have different features."
Id.
The Examiner responds by finding "the change data structure in Wong
is mapped to a MQT file control, because it controls the propagation of
MQTs as taught by Wong" and "[t]he disable propagation flag [154] teaches
4
Appeal2015-003364
Application 13/773,209
a way to disable or enable the propagation of ~vfQTs." Ans. 6. The
Examiner further finds Asano teaches metrics including resource sharing
based on network monitoring using wait flag 603. Ans. 7. The Examiner
still further finds the combination of Wong's selective propagation of MQTs
and Asano 's metrics-dependent propagation teaches
[A] "disable propagation flag" which is used to tum the
propagation of the MQTs in the control file ON/OFF, and if the
propagation of the MQTs in the control file is ON, would look
at the network resource to make a determination to propagate
the MQTs based on if the wait flag (i.e. propagation flag) is ON
or OFF.
Ans. 7.
Appellants' contention is not persuasive of Examiner error. We agree
with the Examiner in findings the combination of Wong and Asano teaches
or suggests the functionalities provided by (i) the disputed journal receiver
attributes flag (whether to propagate an MQT) and (ii) propagate files flag
(identifying \vhich target computers should receive the l\1QTs). \Ve find no
inconsistency in that Wong describes one rather than multiple flags because
the combination of Wong and Asano teaches or suggests both functionalities,
and the use of flags in support of those functionalities. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
That is, because Wong teaches the use of a flag (i.e., disable
propagation flag 154), it would have been obvious to implement both
functionalities using flags. We note in passing, even in the absence of a
disclosure of a particular flag-type data structure, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation, a flag can include any indicator of the existence or
5
Appeal2015-003364
Application 13/773,209
status of a particular condition, e.g., whether or not to propagate
information. See, e.g.' MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 216 (5th
ed. 2002).3 We further find, although Wong does not use the precise
terminology of claim 1, the claimed MQTs are equivalent to Wong's
materialized views (MVs). See Wong, col. 6, 11. 17-22, col. 12, 11. 18-20
(disclosing the replication of MV s ). In addition, because Wong teaches a
database administrator can set a propagation schedule, Wong teaches the
disputed user interface allowing a user to selectively enable MQT
propagation. Final Act. 5. Thus, for the reasons discussed supra,
Appellants' contention 1 is not persuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with contention 2, Appellants argue Asano teaches
determining whether a resource will be shared, not the use of a propagate
files flag as required by claim 1. App. Br. 6. Appellants question whether
"sharing a resource is the same as propagating a file." Id. The Examiner
responds by agreeing the two are not the same but that Wong, not the faulted
Asano, was relied upon for teaching selectively propagating MQTs. Ans. 7.
The Examiner concludes the combination of Wong and Asano teaches or
suggests the disputed disable propagation flag. Id.
Appellants' contention 2 is unpersuasive of error because, as
explained by the Examiner, it fails to address the Examiner's finding that
Wong teaches selective propagation such that the combination of Wong and
Asano (not Asano alone) teaches or suggests the disputed propagate files
flag. Thus, Appellants' attack directed towards Asano individually instead of
3 flag n. 1. Broadly, a marker of some type used by a computer in
processing or interpreting information; a signal indicating the existence or
status of a particular condition.
6
Appeal2015-003364
Application 13/773,209
the applied combination of \Vong and Asano is unpersuasive of Examiner
error.
In connection with claim 2 and contention 3, Appellants argue "[t]he
cited art merely teaches that the metrics can be used for control in general.
There is no teaching even with the combination that these metrics are ever
used to control setting a flag to propagate or not propagate." App. Br. 7.
The Examiner finds Wong's Figure 6 "shows CPU and I/O information for
different computers allowing for resource management." Final Act. 7. The
Examiner takes the position that Appellants' argument is unpersuasive for
the reasons presented in connection with claim 1, i.e., the Examiner's
response to Appellants' allegation the prior art fails to teach or suggest the
use of metrics to selectively control setting a propagation flag. Ans. 8.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. We disagree with
Appellants' argument that the Examiner has not shown the prior art uses
data, such as an I/O metric, to control MQT propagation using a flag. As
discussed supra, the combination of Wong and Asano teaches or suggests the
disputed journal receiver attributes flag and propagate files flag. Because, as
found by the Examiner, Wong's Figure 6 depicts CPU and I/O information
for different computers allowing for resource management (Final Act. 7), we
agree the combination of Wong and Asano teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 2. We further note "[i]f a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Claim 2 specifies the
metrics indicating whether to propagate the MQTs to a target computer
include a CPU metric and an I/O metric set up by a system administrator.
Wong discloses propagation of entries based on a database administrator's
7
Appeal2015-003364
Application 13/773,209
custom definition including bandwidth of and traffic on the network (\Vong
col. 6, 1. 65 - col. 7, 1. 2) and Asano discloses computer resource update
conditions 604 including CPU and I/O threshold data 606 and 608 (Fig. 6, i-f
52.)
Thus, the combination of Wong and Asano teaches or suggests
wherein the metrics of claim 1 include a CPU metric and an I/O metric set
up by a system administrator as required by claim 2. In contrast, Appellants
have not shown the disputed combination would "result in a difference in
function or give unexpected results." In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA
1965). Accordingly, such design choices (e.g., selection of specific metrics
to monitor) "are no more than obvious variations consistent with the
principles known in that art." Id. Therefore, Appellants' contention 3 is
unpersuasive of Examiner error in connection with the rejection of claim 2.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and
dependent claim 2 and, for the same reasons, independent claim 4 and
dependent claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wong and Asano together
with the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 6 which are not argued
separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-6.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8