Ex Parte Becher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2013

10836248 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013)

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.
10/836,248 05/03/2004 Jens Becher 11884/417601 1114
23838 7590 06/28/2013
KENYON & KENYON LLP
1500 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, JOHNESE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2013 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 JENS BECHER, ERND HARTMANN,
MICHAEL HILD, and EKKEHARD LANGE
____________

Appeal 2011-001388
Application 10/836,248
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001388
Application 10/836,248

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-32, which are all the claims remaining in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns computer systems and
methods for performing calculations on objects of a distributed database.
(Spec. ¶¶ [1], [10]; Abstract.)1
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method of performing a calculation on objects of
a distributed database, comprising:
at each of a plurality of local servers:
opening, by a computer processor, a subset of the
objects, each object providing unique data input to the
calculation,
performing, by the computer processor, the
calculation on the subset of the objects to generate intermediate
results therefrom,
storing, by the computer processor, the
intermediate results on the local server, and
closing the objects;

1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal Brief (“Br.”)
filed March 12, 2010. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed July 8, 2010.
Appeal 2011-001388
Application 10/836,248

3
transmitting, by the computer processor at each of the
plurality of local servers, the intermediate results to a central
server;
generating, by a computer processor at the central server,
final results of the calculation from the intermediate results
obtained by the local servers;
transmitting, by the computer processor at the central
server, the final results to the plurality of local servers; and
at the plurality of local servers,
opening objects for which the final results are
relevant,
writing the final results to the relevant objects, and
closing the relevant objects.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 12, and 24-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by US Pat. App. Pub. No.:
2001/0047353 A1, published Nov. 29, 2001 (“Talib”).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by US Pat. App. Pub. No.: 2003/0167153 A1, published
Sep. 4, 2003 (“Alexander”).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 9-11 and 13-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by US Pat. App. Pub. No.: 2003/0237084 A1,
published Dec. 25, 2013 (“Neiman”).
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues
before us follows:
Appeal 2011-001388
Application 10/836,248

4
1. Does the Examiner err in finding that Talib discloses
“transmitting, by the computer processor at the central server, the final
results to the plurality of local servers; and at the plurality of local servers,
opening objects for which the final results are relevant, [and] writing the
final results to the relevant objects” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim
1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 12, 24, and 29?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding that Alexander discloses
“transmitting the final results to the plurality of local servers; and at the
plurality of local servers, opening objects for which the final results are
relevant, [and] writing the final results to the relevant objects” within the
meaning of Appellants’ claim 6?
3. Does the Examiner err in finding that Neiman discloses
“generating, by the computer processor at the central server, final results of
the second calculation; [and] transmitting the final results of the second
calculation to the plurality of local servers” within the meaning of
Appellants’ claim 9 and the commensurate limitations of claims 16 and 20?

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
We agree with Appellants that the portions of Talib cited by the
Examiner as teaching the disputed method steps: (1) transmitting, by the
computer processor at the central server, the final results to the plurality of
local servers; (2) at the plurality of local servers, opening objects for which
the final results are relevant, and (3) writing the final results to the relevant
objects do not explicitly or inherently disclose these steps of claim 1. (Br. 9-
Appeal 2011-001388
Application 10/836,248

5
10; see Ans. 3-4, 15-16 (citing Talib, ¶¶ [0151], [0152].)) In particular, we
agree with Appellants that:
Talib’s ¶ 0152 merely describes the global view being sent to
the local servers, so if needed, subsequent formation of the
global view can be conducted on any computer. . . . It would
not be reasonable for Talib to write the global view containing a
list of search results to [ ] every single data record found in
response to the search query. Based on the Office’s rationale,
the results of every search would be written to each data object
that provided data relevant to the search query.
(Br. 10.) We can find no disclosure in Talib of transmitting and writing
calculation results to objects (data records) on local servers or computers.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude that
Talib fails to disclose the recited features of Appellants’ claim 1. The
rejection of claim 1, therefore, fails to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation. Appellants’ independent claims 12, 24, and 29 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Appellants’ dependent claims 2-5, 25-
28, and 30-32 depend on and stand with claims 1, 24, and 29, respectively.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-5,
12, and 24-36.
Claims 6-8
Similar to claim 1 (supra), we agree with Appellants that the portions
of Alexander cited by the Examiner as disclosing “transmitting the final
results to the plurality of local servers; and at the plurality of local servers,
opening objects for which the final results are relevant, [and] writing the
final results to the relevant objects” (claim 6) do not disclose the disputed
features of claim 6. (Br. 11; see Ans. 9-10, 17-18 (citing Alexander, ¶¶
[0034], [0054]).) In particular, we agree with Appellants that:
Appeal 2011-001388
Application 10/836,248

6
The Office asserts that the data from monitoring devices of
Alexander meets the claimed intermediate results, and asserts
data templates as the claimed final results that are generated
from the intermediate results. . . . Appellants submit that this is
improper because the data templates of Alexander are rules to
be applied to the data, and are not final results of a calculation
as recited in the claim.
(Br. 11.)
Thus, the rejection of claim 6 fails to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation. Appellants’ dependent claims 7 and 8 depend on and stand
with claim 6. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 6-8.
Claim 9
Similar to claim 1 (supra), the Examiner submits that Neiman
discloses the disputed features of claim 9 – “generating, by the computer
processor at the central server, final results of the second calculation; [and]
transmitting the final results of the second calculation to the plurality of
local servers” (claim 9). As with claim 1, the cited portions of Neiman do
not disclose the disputed features and we agree with Appellants (see App.
Br. 11-13) that neither the transaction manager nor the queue (cited by the
Examiner (Ans. 11-12, 18; see Neiman ¶¶ [0057]-[0069])) perform the
functions attributed to the claimed computer processor at the central server
with respect to the second calculation as recited in claim 6.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 fails to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. Appellants’ independent claims 16 and 20 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Appellants’ dependent claims 10, 11,
13-15, 17-19, and 21-23 depend on and stand with claims 1, 16 and 20,

Appeal 2011-001388
Application 10/836,248

7
respectively. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 9-11 and 13-23.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.

REVERSED

Vsh