Ex Parte Dharmavaram et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

12198896 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/198,896 08/27/2008 Srinivas Ganesh Dharmavaram
56436 7590 02/25/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82240256 4913
EXAMINER
WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRINIV AS GANESH DHARMA V ARAM,
PRASANNA ANANTHARAMAIAH, and
ANANDMATHEW 1
Appeal2014-003074
Application 12/198,896
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, HUNG H. BUI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Co, L.P. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003074
Application 12/198,896
Introduction
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "[a] system and method for
concurrency control of logically grouped shared objects in a multi-user
environment." Spec. i-f 12. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter at
issue on appeal (key disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A method of controlling access to logically grouped
shared objects and an object associated with one or more
logical groups of shared objects in a multi-user environment
having different user privileges, wherein the logically grouped
shared objects in the multi-user environment includes multiple
containers and each container including multiple objects,
compnsmg:
receiving a request from a first user for access to a
requested object, the requested object being one of the logically
grouped shared objects, and the object associated with one or
more logical groups of shared objects, the requested object
[sic-being] part of a containment hierarchy;
determining whether the requested object is locked by a
second user:
converting a lock the second user holds on the requested
object to an unbreakable lock on the requested object to
reconcile changes associated with the requested object;
after reconciling changes, reconverting the lock the
second user holds on the requested object to a breakable lock
and breaking the lock the second user holds on the requested
object, allowing access to acquire a write lock, and granting
access to the requested object, when the requested object is
locked by the second user; and
ending the request session.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2014-003074
Application 12/198,896
Rejections
Claims 1, 7, 14, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Goldick (US 2006/0136926 Al; June 22, 2006),
Hunter (US 2006/0195449 Al; Aug. 31, 2006) and Sadjadi (US
2005/0138375 Al; June 23, 2005). Final Act. 3-10.
Claims 2---6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Goldick, Hunter, Sadjadi, and Kamper (US
2006/0155705 Al; July 13, 2006). Final Act. 10-19.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and Answer in light of
the Appellants' Appeal and Reply Briefs, including the cited evidence.
Unless otherwise noted below, we adopt the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner. See Final Act. 3-19; Ans. 3-7. We provide the following
discussion for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Goldick teaches claim
l's "receiving" step because Goldick's "logical connections" do not teach
the claimed "logically grouped shared objects." App. Br. 8-9 (citing
Goldick i-fi-13, 35, 71, and 84). The Examiner responds that Goldick's
disclosure of resource management in a distributed environment teaches
sharing of logically grouped objects. Ans. 3--4 (citing Goldick i-fi-12, 3, 70,
and 71).
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants' reading of Goldick
narrowly focuses on specific, isolated wording and is inconsistent with, for
example, Goldick's Figure 2 and the corresponding specification discussion.
See Final Act. 4 (citing Goldick i139) (showing Server System Resource
3
Appeal2014-003074
Application 12/198,896
Store (302) containing multiple shared objects (304, 306, 312)). In reply,
Appellants provide no persuasive evidence or arguments to rebut the
Examiner's finding. Reply Br. 3--4.
Appellants also argue the Examiner errs in finding Sadjadi teaches
claim 1 's "after reconciling changes, reconverting the lock ... to a breakable
lock" requirement because Sadjadi's "'optimistic lock' is not disclosed as
being a breakable lock." App. Br. 9-10. The Examiner responds that
"Sadjadi teaches converting a lock (i.e., optimistic lock) on the requested
object to an unbreakable lock (i.e., exclusive lock) . ... " Ans. 5 (citing
Sadjadi i-fi-183, 84, 88, 92, Fig. 3B). The Examiner further explains
"[a]lthough Sadjadi does not explicitly call the optimistic lock a breakable
lock, it is clear that the optimistic lock is a breakable lock because Sadjadi
explicitly teaches that the optimistic lock is changed and also released." Ans.
6 (citations omitted). In reply, Appellants argue "[b]ut the 'optimistic lock'
is not disclosed as being a breakable lock" and "[n]or does Sadjadi further
disclose breaking the breakable lock as recited in the claims." Reply Br. 6-
7. We find Appellants' argument does not persuasively rebut the
Examiner's findings and explanation. We also note the Examiner relies
upon Goldick, not Sadjadi, for claim 1 's "breaking the [breakable] lock"
requirement. 2
Appellants further argue that "sorting photographs into containers (as
described by Hunter) fails to disclose the claim recitations of requesting
2 Appellants additionally argue "Goldick (paragraph 90) does not say
anything about 'after reconciling changes."' Reply Br. 5. We find it
unnecessary to address Appellants' narrow interpretation of Goldick on this
point given the Examiner's unrebutted finding, with which we agree, that
Sadjadi also teaches this requirement. Final Act. 6.
4
Appeal2014-003074
Application 12/198,896
access to logically grouped shared objects ... " Reply Br. 5. This argument,
however, is raised for the first time in the Reply Brief. Appellants have not
explained why this new argument was necessitated by a new point in the
Examiner Answer or any other circumstance constituting "good cause" for
its belated presentation. See Ex parte Borden, 93 U.S.P.Q.2d 1473, 1473-74
(BPAI 2010) ("informative") (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is
not required to address argument in Reply Brief that could have been
presented in the principal Appeal Brief'). Nevertheless, for purposes of
completeness, we have considered this argument and find it unpersuasive.
The Examiner cites Hunter only for teaching the referenced step's "the
requested object [sic-being] part of a containment hierarchy" requirement.
Final Act. 4--5. We agree with the Examiner that Hunter teaches all
requirements of claim 1 's recited "logically grouped shared objects ...
includ[ing] multiple containers" and "containment hierarchy." See id.
We thus sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants make
no separate substantive arguments for patentability of the remaining claims
2-20, and thus we sustain the Examiner's rejection of all claims. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(sustaining requirement for an appellant to make separate substantive
arguments for separate review on appeal of individual claims).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
5
Appeal2014-003074
Application 12/198,896
AFFIRMED
6