Ex Parte Bjornerstedt

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 9, 2003

09234514 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 9, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DAG ANDERS BJORNERSTEDT
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1950
Application No. 09/234,514
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FLEMING, RUGGIERO, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claims 1, 3-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24-
27. The appellant appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue concerns "transaction management" of a database.
Transaction management is used to isolate a transaction involving a database from
other actions or events therein and to provide a consistent picture of the data stored in
the database. For its part, the invention "is provided for consistent reading of a number
of objects (10, 20, 30) within a database," (Spec. at abs.), "in which transactions are
Appeal No. 2002-1950 Page 2
Application No. 09/234,514
managed by two-phase locking." (Id.) A first phase (A) includes requesting access to
objects affected by a transaction and locking the objects when the request is granted.
A second phase (B) includes committing the transaction and releasing all locks
that were set in the first phase. The work done in a transaction may be a changing
action or a non-changing action. For a changing action, the content of an object is
changed by writing new content into a new version of the object, where the version of
the object existing before the transaction is retained until no further transactions use it.
Although all changing actions are done within the first phase, the transaction retains
access to the objects after the second phase and performs the largest possible number
of non-changing actions in a third phase, after which the transaction closes access to
the objects. (Id.) Consequently, asserts the appellant, the invention provides "the
transaction is provided with a consistent snapshot of effected objects . . . in the
database," (id.), "therewith enabling the transaction to use the consistent picture of the
object[s] for non-changing actions without limiting the transaction with respect to time
and without blocking other transactions." (Id. at 9.)
A further understanding of the invention can be achieved by reading the following
claim.
24. A method of providing consistent reading of a number of
objects within a database comprising the steps of:
Appeal No. 2002-1950 Page 3
Application No. 09/234,514
providing transactions including object-changing actions and/or
object non-changing actions, said object changing actions include
changing content of an object and/or updating said object by said
transaction writing a new content into a new version of said object;
performing a first phase of requesting access to objects affected by
a transition, locking said objects after access thereto has been obtained,
and performing all object changing actions by said transaction;
performing a second phase of committing said transaction and
releasing all locks set in said first phase; and
performing a third phase of retaining a current version of said
object prior to said transaction until no further transactions make use of
said current version, retaining access for reading concerned object
versions, carrying out a largest possible number of non-changing actions
by the transition, and closing access to said objects after performing said
non-changing actions.
Claims 1, 4-10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 24-25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,280,612 (“Lorie”). Claims 3, 12, 15, 18,
21, and 26 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Lorie in view of U.S. Patent
No. 6,026,401 (“Brealey”).
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Lorie
discloses performing a query after an updating transaction (lines 3-7 in col. 5)."
(Examiner's Answer at 7.) He opines that "after the update, the same transaction may
Appeal No. 2002-1950 Page 4
Application No. 09/234,514
access the object for reading data of the object. This also teaches the access to the
object is not closed after the update." (Id.) The appellant argues, "[n]othing in Lorie et
al. shows, teaches or suggests that a transaction retains access for reading concerned
object versions after a second phase (i.e., after locks are released). . . ." (Appeal Br.
at 9.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
database transactions are managed by locking in two phases, wherein a
first phase includes a request for access to objects affected by said
transaction and locking of said objects after access thereto has been
obtained, wherein a second phase includes committing said transaction,
and wherein all locks set in said first phase are released, . . .
characterised [sic] in that said transaction retains said access for reading
concerned object versions after said second phase. . . .
Similarly, independent claim 24 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
performing a first phase of requesting access to objects affected by a
transition, locking said objects after access thereto has been obtained,
and performing all object changing actions by said transaction; performing
a second phase of committing said transaction and releasing all locks set
Appeal No. 2002-1950 Page 5
Application No. 09/234,514
in said first phase; and performing a third phase of . . . retaining access
for reading concerned object versions. . . .
Giving the independent claims their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations
require a transaction to retain access to objects for reading object versions after
releasing locks on the objects.
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litigation, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim is anticipated only
if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Structural
Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264, 1270
(Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ
193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d760, 771, 218
USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed
element negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565,
1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the passage of Lorie cited by the examiner mentions that "when a read-
only query must access the most recent database version, it may be relabeled and
Appeal No. 2002-1950 Page 6
Application No. 09/234,514
restarted as an updating transaction and thereby acquire the necessary read locks on
all data." Col. 5, ll. 3-7. The examiner fails to show that the reference's relabeled
updating transaction, however, retains access to the most recent database version for
reading the version after releasing its read locks. The absence of the aforementioned
showing negates anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of
claim 1; of claims 4-10, 13, 16, 19, 22, which depend therefrom; of claim 24; and of
claims 25 and 27, which depend therefrom.
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,
783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of Brealey
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Lorie. Absent a teaching or suggestion of a
transaction retaining access to objects for reading object versions after releasing locks
Appeal No. 2002-1950 Page 7
Application No. 09/234,514
on the objects, the examiner fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 26.

CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 4-10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 24-25, and 27 under
§ 102(b) and the rejection of claims 3, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 26 under § 103(a) are
reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-1950 Page 8
Application No. 09/234,514
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-1950 Page 9
Application No. 09/234,514
BURNS DOANE SWECKER & MATHIS L L P
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
APPEAL NO. 2002-1950 - JUDGE BARRY
APPLICATION NO. 09/234,514
APJ BARRY - 2 copies
APJ FLEMING
APJ RUGGIERO
After signing, return to APJ Barry for disk.
After APJ Barry provides disk, forward to Team 3 for
entering changes and mailing.

Prepared By: APJ BARRY
DRAFT SUBMITTED: 24 Sep 03
FINAL TYPED:
Team 3:
I typed all of this opinion.
Please proofread spelling, cites, and quotes. Mark your proposed changes on the
opinion, but do NOT change matters of form or style. I will include the diskette
with the signed copy so that you can make all changes before mailing.
For any additional reference provided, please prepare PTO 892 and include copy of
references
Thanks, Judge Barry