Ex Parte Dee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 11, 2011

10990609 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Feb. 11, 2011)

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.
10/990,609 11/17/2004 Stanley J. Dee 149-0133US 6286
29855 7590 02/14/2011
WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI,
L.L.P.
20333 SH 249 6th Floor
HOUSTON, TX 77070
EXAMINER
LODHI, ANDALIB FT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte STANLEY J. DEE, MICHAEL S. MURLEY,
and WILLIAM J. POTHOFF
__________

Appeal 2009-006964
Application 10/990,609
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-006964
Application 10/990,609

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-54. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to building an index of
source data (Spec. 1).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An index building method, comprising:
creating a snapshot image of source data at a point-in-time;
making the snapshot image consistent with the source data as of
the point-in-time;
creating the index from the consistent image;
making the consistent image consistent with the source data as
of a subsequent point-in-time; and
updating the index to reflect the subsequent consistent image.

The References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Goldring US 5,603,024 Feb. 11, 1997
Sicola US 6,618,794 B1 Sept. 9, 2003

The Rejections
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-35, and 37-54 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Goldring.
Appeal 2009-006964
Application 10/990,609

3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goldring and Sicola.

ISSUES
Appellant argues that Goldring fails to disclose “creating an index
from a consistent snapshot image” (App. Br. 8) and “updating an index to
reflect a previously consistent image made consistent to source data as of a
subsequent point-in-time” (App. Br. 9).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Goldring discloses creating an
index from a consistent image and updating the index to reflect the
subsequent consistent image?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Goldring discloses “Snapshots [that] are read-only tables that are
created out of the original source data base tables” (col. 2, ll. 14-16)
that “reflect the condition of the data base at a particular point in
time” (col. 2, ll. 9-10) and “can be refreshed to reflect all changes to
the original user data table since the creation of the initial snapshot”
(col. 2, ll. 16-18).
2. Goldring discloses that a user may update data and that a “data base
manager automatically assigns transaction numbers to the user
Appeal 2009-006964
Application 10/990,609

4
updates and records the updates and transaction numbers in an
activity log” (col. 4, ll. 54-56) “thereby maintaining a change history
of the data base” (col. 5, ll. 34-35).
3. Goldring discloses that the “activity log” contains update events (col.
9, ll. 33-34; Fig. 3) and “Change_Data table rows” that includes
“arbitrary key[s] for indexing the table” (col. 9, ll. 54-55; Fig. 4).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
35 U.S.C. § 103
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

Appeal 2009-006964
Application 10/990,609

5
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Goldring fails to disclose “creating an index
from a consistent snapshot image” (App. Br. 8) and “updating an index to
reflect a previously consistent image made consistent to source data as of a
subsequent point-in-time” (App. Br. 9).
The Examiner states that Goldring “‘receives sequence of updates to
source data tables in a database and records them into an activity log for
later retrieval’ are mention to build an index’” (App. Br. 10) and therefore
finds that Goldring’s “activity log” satisfies the recitation of an “index” in
claims 1, 18, 35, and 45.
Construing the claim term “index” in light of the Specification, an
“index” includes “a set of pointers” that are “ordered by the values of a key.”
Further, an “index” is “used to search information in tables” (Spec. 2). We
agree with the Examiner that Goldring discloses an “activity log” that
includes “a set of pointers” (i.e., “arbitrary key for indexing the table”) used
to search a table (FF 3). Therefore, we agree that the “activity log” of
Goldring satisfies the claim limitation of an “index.” However, claims 1, 18,
35, and 45 also require that the index be created from the consistent snapshot
image, which the Examiner has not demonstrated to be disclosed in
Goldring. The activity log of Goldring, instead of being created from a
consistent snapshot image as required by claims 1, 18, 35, and 45, is created
by logging user updates in the log (FF 2). Thus, we cannot agree with the
Appeal 2009-006964
Application 10/990,609

6
Examiner that Goldring discloses creating an index from a consistent
snapshot image.
Also, we do not find, and the Examiner has not shown, that Goldring
discloses updating the index to reflect the subsequent consistent image, as
recited in claims 1, 35, and 45, since updating the activity log in Goldring
merely reflects subsequent user updates (FF 2) rather than reflecting a
subsequent snapshot image as recited in claim 1, 35, and 45. In fact, while
the claim recites updating the index to reflect the image, Goldring discloses
the opposite, namely, updating the image (or snapshot) to reflect the index
(or “activity log”).
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 18, 35, and 45, and claims 2-17, 19-34, 36-44, and 46-
54, which depend therefrom.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in finding that Goldring discloses creating an index from
a consistent image and updating the index to reflect the subsequent
consistent image.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-35, and 37-
54 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 2 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2009-006964
Application 10/990,609

7

REVERSED

WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, LLP
20333 SH 249 6th Floor
HOUSTON, TX 77070

KMF