Ex Parte Eluri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2018

13332465 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018)

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.
1933.1870000 2543
EXAMINER
BROMELL, ALEXANDRIA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/332,465 12/21/2011
82515 7590 02/07/2018
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Amarnadh Sai ELURI
02/07/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMARNADH SAI ELURI
and SASIKANTH SIMHACHALA GOTTAPU
Appeal 2017-008960
Application 13/332,465
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LYNNE E.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4—11, 13—19, 21, and 22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed June 5, 2017) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed January 23, 2017),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 16, 2017) and Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 10, 2016).
2 Claims 3,12, and 20 were previously cancelled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2017-008960
Application 13/332,465
INVENTION
The invention is directed to providing access to a database data source
during database maintenance. Spec. 14.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1,11, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced below.
1. A method of providing access to a database data
source during database maintenance, comprising:
initiating maintenance of the database data source,
wherein maintenance includes locking a first data
structure and then unlocking the first data structure
to allow for a first modification by a database
client;
creating a second set of data by populating a
second data structure with the first set of data from
the first data structure while the first data structure
is unlocked for the first modification;
updating the second set of data based on the first
modification to the first set of data;
deactivating the first data structure by changing
system metadata;
activating the second data structure by changing
system metadata; and
updating the second set of data based on a second
modification to the first set of data, wherein the
second modification to the first set of data
occurred after the first data structure was
deactivated.
Independent claims 11 and 19 recite similar limitations as claim
1, and Appellants argue they are allowable for the same reasons as
argued for claim 1. App. Br. 9, 15; Reply Br. 5.
2
Appeal 2017-008960
Application 13/332,465
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4—11, 13—19, 21, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wei et al. (U.S. 2007/0239751 Al,
published Oct. 11, 2007) and Beier et al. (U.S. 2009/0055448 Al, published
Feb. 26, 2009).
ISSUES
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wei and Beier
teaches or suggests changing system metadata to activate and
deactivate data structures? App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2—3.
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that it would have been obvious to
combine Wei and Beier? App. Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 3^4.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Wei teaches the limitations in claim 1
including deactivating a first data structure and activating a second data
structure, but does not explicitly teach these steps are done by “changing
system metadata.” Final Act 3—5. The Examiner relies on Beier to teach
deactivating and activating data structures by changing system metadata.
Final Act 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Beier teaches using
tracked changes (data data-spaces store the location of the changes) to
deactivate and activate data-spaces. Final Act. 5; see Beier 133. The
Examiner finds Beier’s data structures are activated or deactivated based on
their location, which is stored in the tracked changes; as such, the Examiner
finds Beier teaches changing system metadata. Ans. 22. The Examiner
concludes combining Wei’s method with Beier’s metadata to deactivate one
3
Appeal 2017-008960
Application 13/332,465
data space and activate another would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Final Act. 5. The Examiner further concludes the motivation
to combine is within the references, i.e., facilitating efficiently tracking,
coordinating, and manipulating large amounts of data with database
administration. Ans. 25.
Issue 1
Appellants argue the combination of Wei and Beier does not teach or
suggest the claimed “system metadata” and features associated therewith.
App. Br. 9-13. Specifically, Appellants argue Beier’s tracked changes
would not be the same as the claimed system metadata because the tracked
changes controls data, which is different from the metadata, where the
claimed system metadata is used to control data sources. App. Br. 10-11.
Appellants further argue that even if the tracked changes were similar to the
system metadata, Beier only deactivates an original data-space and activates
a replacement data-space once the tracked changes have been applied. App.
Br. 12. Further, Appellants argue Beier teaches the data data-space has
information about the memory addresses of the changed data elements in the
original data-space and shadow data-space, but that information about the
data elements is different from selection of an entire data-space. Reply Br.
2—3; see Ans. 18, 21; Beier 148.
We are not persuaded because Appellants mischaracterize the
teachings in Beier, as relied upon by the Examiner. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, Beier’s tracked changes is not data, but is the location of the data.
See Ans. 18, 21; Beier || 14, 23, 29, 37, 38, 48. Beier teaches tracked
changes includes index data-spaces and data data-spaces, where the data
data-spaces store the location of a changed data element, but not the actual
change to the data. See Beier 114, 29. Beier teaches the pending changes
4
Appeal 2017-008960
Application 13/332,465
are applied to the data in the shadow data-space and then, once all of the
pending changes as marked by the tracked changes have been made, the
original data-space is deactivated and the reorganized shadow data-space is
activated. See Beier 133. That is, as the pending changes to the data are
applied, the locations of the data elements with updates are changed
(decreased) and once all pending changes have been applied, the
reorganization is complete and no locations are listed as having changes
(i.e., the system metadata is changed), and the data structure is changed (i.e.,
the original data space is deactivated and the reorganized shadow data space
is activated). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the selection,
activated or deactivated, of the original and shadow data-spaces in Beier is
based on changes to the system metadata. See Ans. 22; Beier 133, 43, 59.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments as to the combination lacking system
metadata and associated claimed features are unpersuasive.
Issue 2
Appellants argue the Examiner impermissibly supports its conclusion
of obviousness with circular logic, conclusory statements, and hindsight.
App. Br. 13—15. Appellants further argue that the Examiner does not
identify any motivation, advantage, or improvement that would result from
incorporating Beier’s teachings into the system of Wei. Reply Br. 4.
Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner does not explain why there is a
reasonable expectation of success in combining Wei and Beier. Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner concludes
combining Beier’s teaching to use metadata to deactivate one data space and
activate another with Wei would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art (Final Act. 5) because the motivation to combine is within the
references (Ans. 25). Specifically, the Examiner concludes Beier provides a
5
Appeal 2017-008960
Application 13/332,465
motivation, i.e., facilitating efficient tracking, coordinating, and
manipulating large amounts of data with database administration. Ans. 25.
The Examiner, therefore, provided some reasoning with rational
underpinning to support a finding of obviousness and Appellants have not
addressed the Examiner’s specific finding. As such, Appellants’ hindsight
argument is unpersuasive because Appellants failed to explain why the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning with rational underpinning does not
support the conclusion of obviousness.
To the extent Appellants argue there was no reasonable expectation of
success in combining Wei and Beier (Reply Br. 4), the Examiner’s proposed
modification to Wei does not appear to be uniquely challenging, and
Appellants have not sufficiently explained or provided evidence as to why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had an expectation of
success in making the modifications. See In re O ’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success,
not absolute predictability of success). We note both Wei and Beier give
specific guidance for activating and deactivating data structures while
synchronizing the structures during database maintenance. See Wei ]Hf 15,
47, 49; Beier || 33, 50, 61, Fig. 2. Furthermore, the Examiner’s proposed
combination merely substitutes activating and deactivating elements of Beier
into Wei, the elements performing the same functions they have been known
to perform. Because the evidence supports a likelihood of success in
combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention, i.e.,
that the combination of Wei and Beier works for its intended purpose, we
agree that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, we are not apprised of error with respect to the
Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Wei and Beier teaches
6
Appeal 2017-008960
Application 13/332,465
deactivating the first data structure by changing system metadata and
activating the second data structure by changing system metadata as required
in independent claims 1,11, and 19. Claims 2, 4—10, 21, and 22 depend
from claim 1 or another dependent base claim, and claims 13—18 depend
from claim 11 or another dependent base claim. App. Br. 17—22, Claims
Appendix. Appellants do not present separate arguments for the dependent
claims. See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 5. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—11, 13—19, 21, and 22.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—11, 13—19, 21, and 22 are
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
7