Ex Parte Bourbonnais et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2016

13553372 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/553,372 07/19/2012
63675 7590 04/22/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL
24 Greenway Plaza
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046-2472
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Serge Bourbonnais
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.
SVL920100048US3 8477
EXAMINER
HOLLAND, SHERYLL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2016 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):
P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SERGE BOURBONNAIS, SOMIL KULKARNI,
and YAT 0. LAU
Appeal2014-003733
Application 13/553,372
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5-7, all the pending claims in the present
application. Claims 3 and 4 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to techniques for initializing a
connection in a peer-to-peer database replication environment. See Abstract.
Appeal2014-003733
Application 13/553,372
Claim l is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for initializing a
connection in a peer-to-peer replication environment, comprising:
responsive to a request to add a target node to a data
replication group, receiving a first message, at the target node, from
an initiator node within the data replication group, indicating that the
initiator node will begin replicating changes to the target node without
waiting for any acknowledgements relating to the first message,
wherein the changes are applied to a first instance of a data entity on
the initiator node;
upon receiving the first message indicating that the
initiator node will begin replicating changes, transmitting a second
message, from the target node, to at least one other member in the
data replication group, announcing that the target node is joining the
data replication group;
receiving a plurality of replicated changes, at the target
node, from at least one member of the data replication group;
determining whether the target node contains a base copy
of the data entity, which if updated by application of the plurality of
replicated changes would be synchronized with the first instance of
the data entity on the initiator node;
upon determining the target node does not contain the
base copy of the data entity, performing one or more load operations
to create a second instance of the data entity on the target node; and
upon performing the one or more load operations,
processing each received replicated change in the plurality of
replicated changes against the second instance of the data entity, by
operation of one or more computer processors.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 8-10, 12-17, and 19-21 of copending Application No. 12/986,049 in
view of 13/553,372 (Final Act 3); and
2
Appeal2014-003733
Application 13/553,372
R2. Claim 1, 2, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Beyer (US 2005/0193024 Al, Sept. 1, 2005) and
Adiba (US 2005/0193037 Al, Sept. 1, 2005) (Final Act. 9).
RELATED DECISION
Appeal No. 2014-004135 (Application No. 12/986,049), mailed
April 20, 2016 (Examiner Affirmed).
The Examiner and Appellants direct our attention to essentially the
same or similar evidence relied upon in the above-noted related case.
Therefore, we adopt and incorporate herein by reference the Board's related
decision to the extent it applies to the similar arguments and evidence made
herein.
ANALYSIS
Double Patenting Rejection
At the outset, we observe that Appellants present no arguments on
appeal regarding the Examiner's provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type
double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-7 (see Final Act. 3). We
note that arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, we proforma affirm the Examiner's
provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of
claim 1, 2, and 5-7.
Rejection under§ 103 (a) of Claims 1, 2, and 5-7
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of
Beyer and Adiba, particularly Adiba, teach or suggest receiving a first
3
Appeal2014-003733
Application 13/553,372
message indicating that the 1mtrntor node will begin replicating changes to
the target node without waiting for any acknowledgement relating to the first
message, as set forth in claim 1?
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to the Appellants'
arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of the references, particularly Adiba, teaches
or suggests the aforementioned limitation.
As identified by Appellants, Adiba is not the same as the claimed
invention because it discloses "a replication procedure in which replication
begins only after acknowledgement messages are received from all active
members of a replication group ... [instead of] without waiting for any
acknowledgements relating to the first message" (App. Br. 11 ).
As an initial matter, we find that the Examiner's proffered
P2PNEW2MEMB signal is not equivalent to the claimed "first message,"
instead, we find that the claimed first message reads on Adiba 's
P2PJOINUS message. For example, we agree with Appellants that "Adiba 's
P2PNEW2MEMB signal is not a message that is received from the initiator
node[, r ]ather it is status data that the Apply component of the new member
inserts into a table, responsive to receiving a P2PJOINUS message" (see
Reply Br. 3; see also Adiba i-f 76). Adiba 's P2PJOINUS message equates to
the claimed first message because the Adiba 's initiator 201 sends the
P2PJOINUS message to the new member 208 indicating initialization into
the replication group (Adiba i-f 76; see also Fig. 7). On the other hand, the
Examiner's proffered P2PNEW2MEMB signal is not received from the
initiator, but instead the new member 208 inserts the P2PNEW2MEMB
4
Appeal2014-003733
Application 13/553,372
signal into its own signal table 209 after it receives the P2PJOH•rtJS message
(id.).
Having established that Adiba 's P2PJOINUS message teaches
receiving a first message at the target node, we next tum to whether Adiba
teaches that the message indicates that the initiator will begin replicating
changes without waiting for any acknowledgements relating to the first
message. Appellants contend that in Adiba "the new node contacts each of
the active nodes in the list and waits for an acknowledgement from each of
the active nodes before data replication begins" (App. Br. 11). We agree
with Appellants.
Specifically, Adiba waits for acknowledgements before replicating
changes to the new node (see Adiba i-fi-178-81; see also Fig. 7). For
example, Adiba discloses that "[ t ]he return of the SCHEMA message to the
new member 208 is an acknowledgement to the new member 208 that an
active member has received the subscription information for the new
member 208" (i-f 78), "[ w ]hen all bits have been toggled, all
acknowledgements have been received by the initiator 201" (i-f 79), and
normal data replication protocol is performed from that point forward, via
step 726" (i-f 81 ). Thus, we agree with Appellants that "[i]n the context of
Figure 7 [of Adiba ], while the P2PNEW2MEMB signal is inserted in block
705, data replication does not begin until block 726 of Figure 7 ... a
number of different SCHEMA messages and loading operations are
performed before data replication begins at block 726" (Reply Br. 4).
Therefore, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Adiba teaches
that "the P2PNEW2MEMB signal ... is the 'first message' ... Replication
begins at the target node when the node inserts the P2PNEWMEMB data,
5
Appeal2014-003733
Application 13/553,372
without waitmg for an acknowledgement of the P2PNEWivIEivIB message"
(Ans. 10). We emphasize that the Examiner has not directed our attention to
any evidence in Adiba that replication begins when P2PNEWMEMB data is
inserted into the table of the target node. The Examiner also has not found
any of the other references of record teach this feature.
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 5-7.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to provisionally reject claims 1, 2, and
5-7 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and 5-7 under
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beyer andAdiba is reversed.
Since at least one rejection encompassing all claims on appeal is
affirmed, the decision of the Examiner 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6