Ex Parte Chandra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2017

14058267 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2017)

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.
14/058,267 10/20/2013 Venkat K. Chandra RSW920120082US2 4422
(778CON)
46320 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
09/20/2017 EXAMINER
ENNAJI, LAHCEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2017 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VENKAT K. CHANDRA, PRASAD G. PARULEKAR,
SUNIL SARIN, KRISHNAN SEETHARAMAN, DAVID L. SHEPARD,
and LAWRENCE STABILE
Appeal 2016-008629
Application 14/058,2671
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING2
Appellants request rehearing of the March 22, 2017 Decision on
Appeal (“Decision”) where we affirmed the rejection of claims 1-9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have reconsidered the Decision in light of
Appellants’ arguments but, for the reasons given below, we are not
persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any points made by
Appellants in our Decision.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the Applicant,
International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
2 This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2016-008732, Application No.
13/693,393.
Appeal 2016-008629
Application 14/058,267
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Board erred in affirming the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Merriman and Norin by
misapprehending or overlooking Appellants’ arguments regarding the
limitation “replicating meta-data representing a state of the replication data
processing system into a data structure of eventually consistent meta-data.”
Req. Reh’g 2^1. In particular, Appellants argue the Board finds Norin3
teaches a replica list of a replica state, which equates to the claimed “meta­
data.” Id. at 3 (citing Decision 4-5). Appellants argue the Board finds
Merriman4 teaches an eventually consistent database. Id. Appellants argue
“the Board has not proffered evidence of record showing the claimed
replication of state information for the replication data processing system
into a data structure of eventually consistent meta-data.” Id. at 4 (emphasis
in original). Appellants further argue “the Board has not articulated a
teaching in Merriman showing the replication of any data into the eventually
consistent database of Merriman.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions. As stated in the
Decision, Norin teaches “a replica list that contains the replica state (‘meta­
data’) for each replica node (‘nodes’ in a ‘replication data processing
system’) and a time stamp indicating when the entry was last modified.”
Decision 4 (citing Norin 3:55-67). Norin teaches the replica list is sent to
each node in the system. Norin 10:54-65. In other words, Norin teaches
replicating the replica list (which contains the replica state, or meta-data)
into another replica node’s database.
3 Norin et al., US 5,787,247, issued July 28, 1998.
4 Merriman et al., US 2013/0290249 Al, published Oct. 31, 2013.
2
Appeal 2016-008629
Application 14/058,267
As stated in the Decision, Norin does not teach replicating this meta­
data into an eventually consistent database. Decision 4. However,
Merriman teaches the use of an eventually consistent database. Id. (citing
Merriman || 7, 66). Further, Merriman teaches replicating data into an
eventually consistent database. See, e.g., Merriman 110. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, the combination of Norin and Merriman teaches or
suggests “replicating meta-data representing a state of the replication data
processing system into a data structure [as taught by Norin] of eventually
consistent meta-data [as taught by Merriman].”
We did not overlook Appellants’ arguments that the references fail to
teach or suggest this limitation. Instead, we found these arguments
unpersuasive because Appellants’ arguments focus on the references
individually without considering the combined teachings of the references.
See Decision 4 (citing In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986)).
DECISION
For the reasons stated above, Appellants have not persuaded us that
we misapprehended or overlooked any issue of fact or law in our Decision.
We have granted Appellants’ Request for Rehearing to the extent that
we have reconsidered our Decision dated March 22, 2017, but we deny
Appellants’ request to make any changes therein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
REHEARING DENIED
3