Ex Parte Blackman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 2, 2015

12476816 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TIMOTHY J. BLACKMAN

Appeal 2012-012598
Application 12/476,816
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, ANDREW J. DILLON, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a distributed database system that
“includes a central data server, and a plurality of application nodes for
receiving connections from clients. Each application node is in
communication with the central data server and has a data cache, which
maintains local copies of recently used data items. The central data server
keeps track of which data items are stored in each data cache and makes
Appeal 2012-012598
Application 12/476,816

2
callback requests to the data caches to request the return of data items that
are needed elsewhere. Data items, including modified data items, are cached
locally at a local application node so long as the locally cached data items
are only being accessed by the local application node. The local application
node handles transactions and stores changes to the data items. The local
application node forwards changes, in order by transaction, to the central
data server to insure consistency, thereby providing limited durability write
caching.” Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A distributed database system comprising:

a central data server which maintains persistent storage for data
items; a plurality of application nodes for receiving connections
from clients, each application node being in communication
with the central data server, and having a data cache which
maintains local copies of recently used data items;

the central data server keeping track of which data items are
stored in each data cache and making callback requests to the
data caches to request the return of data items that are needed
elsewhere;

wherein data items, including modified data items, are cached
locally at a local application node so long as the locally cached
data items are only being accessed by the local application
node, the local application node handling transactions and
storing changes to the data items; and

wherein the local application node forwards changes, in order
by transaction, to the central data server to insure consistency,
thereby providing limited durability write caching; and

wherein the local application node is configured such that,
when a transaction commits, changes to the data items are
Appeal 2012-012598
Application 12/476,816

3
stored to update the data cache atomically, and the changes to
the data items are stored in a change queue, and wherein the
local application node forwards the updates from the change
queue, in order by transaction, to the central data server to
insure consistency when providing limited durability write
caching.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Weinreb et al., US 2001/0034822 A1 Oct. 25, 2001
Sicola et al., US 6,629,264 B1 Sept. 30, 2003

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as unpatentable over Weinreb and Sicola. Final Rej. 4–13.
1

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5–6) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s 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 (Final Rej. 4–13), and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the
references as follows.
Appellant argues that there is no reason why one of ordinary skill in
the art would “modify Weinreb to incorporate a change queue and
forwarding updates from the change queue, in order by transaction, to the

1
Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection mailed November
3, 2011; the Appeal Brief filed March 6, 2012; and, the Examiner’s Answer
mailed June 11, 2012.
Appeal 2012-012598
Application 12/476,816

4
central server to ensure consistency, while providing limited durability write
caching.” App. Br. 5.
In support of this position Appellant argues that Weinreb teaches
away from the use of a change queue. Appellant argues:
The traditional goal of systems such as Weinreb is to forward
completed transactions immediately (or perhaps as needed).
Utilizing a change queue as does the claimed invention is the
total opposite of what one would normally do -- completed
transactions would normally be forwarded. Purposefully
holding up the transactions in a change queue goes against the
traditional approaches used in such systems. For these reasons,
Weinreb teaches away from the claimed invention.

App. Br. 6.

The Examiner finds that Weinreb does not teach away from the
claimed invention, noting that Weinreb permits manipulation of data in a
temporary stage in the cache memory and thus provides the claimed “limited
durability write caching.” Ans. 5 (citing Weinreb ¶ 63).
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
The basis for Appellant’s assertion of “teaching away” appears to be
mere argument regarding “traditional goals” and “what one would normally
do” without citation to any particular portion of the disclosure of Weinreb.
“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just
attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to
rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
Appeal 2012-012598
Application 12/476,816

5
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642 (CCPA 1978); In re
Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972) (“mere lawyers’ arguments
unsupported by factual evidence are insufficient to establish unexpected
results”)).
Appellant also argues that the Examiner has failed to set forth a proper
reason for combining the Weinreb and Sicola references, urging that
“combining these two methods would provide a declared consistency to the
data operation,” as set forth by the Examiner, “does not appear to be an
adequate reason to combine the references as proposed.” App. Br. 6.
The Examiner finds that Weinreb performs manipulations on data
while that data is stored in cache memory and thereafter transfers that data to
permanent storage. Storing that change data in a queue, as taught by Sicola,
would protect that data in the event of a power failure, since the changes
stored in a queue could be “replayed” in case of a memory failure or when a
link is restored, such as in the event of a power failure. See Ans. 7 (citing
Sicola 14:20–32, 59–65).
We find no evidence that Weinreb teaches away from the claimed
invention, and we also find that the Examiner’s rationale for combining
Weinreb and Sicola was expressly stated and has a rational underpinning.
We therefore find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–
6, 8–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Weinreb
and Sicola.

Appeal 2012-012598
Application 12/476,816

6
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1) (iv).

AFFIRMED
dm