Ex Parte Fabijancic

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2017

13673570 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 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.
13/673,570 11/09/2012 Toni Fabijancic 2058.769US1 6961
50400 7590 02/15/2017
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
CHAN, TRACY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2137
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TONI FABIJANCIC
Appeal 2016-002524
Application 13/673,570
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—20, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is SAP SE. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002524
Application 13/673,570
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The invention generally relates to the processing of data and, more
specifically, to managing data within a cache. Spec. 11, Abstract.2
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows, with italics indicating the
limitations at issue in claim 1:
1. A method, comprising:
transferring from a data archive first data associated with
a first structure of an archive file and second data associated
with a second structure of the archive file to cache memory;
tracking a consumer that requested the first structure of
the archive file and the second structure of the archive file to be
transferred to the cache memory;
performing, within the cache memory, a relational
operation between the first data and the second data;
determining that the consumer is finished with the
requested first structure and the requested second structure by
accessing at least one record indicating a relationship between
the consumer and at least one of the first structure and the
second structure, the at least one record comprising an identity
of the consumer and an identity of the at least one of the first
structure and the second structure; and
deleting the first data and the second data from the cache
memory based on the determination that the consumer is
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed November 9, 2012; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed November 6, 2014; “Adv. Act.” for the Advisory Action,
mailed February 12, 2015; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed May 27,
2015; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 20, 2015; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed December 21, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-002524
Application 13/673,570
finished with the requested first structure and the requested
second structure.
App. Br. 23 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
Manolov et al. US 2007/0113014 A1 May 17, 2007
(“Manolov”)
Powell et al. US 2012/0117509 Al May 10, 2012
(“Powell”)
Liane Will, SAP APO System Administration: Principles for Effective
APO System Management, SAP Press 2002 (“Will”)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—6 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Manolov, Powell, and Will. Final Act. 5—9.
Claims 7—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Manolov and Powell. Final Act. 9—15.3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—20 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellant’s assertions regarding error by the
3 In the event of continued prosecution, the Examiner should consider the
applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) to claims 13—20 and whether the
Specification discloses sufficient structure, e.g., a suitable algorithm, for
accomplishing the various functions assigned to each of the modules recited
in the claims. See, e.g., Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
830 F.3d 1341, 1349—50 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Williamson v. Gitrix Online, LLC,
792 F.3d 1339, 1348-54 (Fed. Cir. 2015); EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 624 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
3
Appeal 2016-002524
Application 13/673,570
Examiner. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action,
Advisory Action, and Answer and add the following primarily for emphasis.
The Rejections of Claims 1, 4—14,
16, and 20 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
“Determining” Consumer Usage
of Data by “Accessing” a Record
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
“Manolov does not explicitly teach determining whether a consumer of a
data object stored within memory of a cache is currently utilizing the data
object by ‘accessing at least one record indicating a relationship between the
consumer and one or more of the first structure and the second structure’.”
App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 7. Appellant then argues that Powell “does not
disclose or suggest” determining “whether a consumer of a data object
stored within memory of a cache is currently utilizing the data object by
accessing” a record according to claim 1. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 7—8.
Appellant asserts that “neither reference (Manolov and Powell) suggests
performing the cited ‘determining’ operation by performing the cited
‘accessing’ operation.” Reply Br. 8. Appellant also asserts that Will “does
not disclose or suggest” a record according to claim 1 “and therefore does
not cure the deficiency of Manolov.” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 10.
Appellant’s assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner relies on the combination of disclosures in Manolov and
Powell for the limitations at issue. Final Act. 5—7; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 2—5.
“[T]he test for combining references is not what the individual references
themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a
whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re McLaughlin,
443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971); see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
4
Appeal 2016-002524
Application 13/673,570
(CCPA 1981). Here, Appellant’s arguments address the references
individually. See App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 7—10. Where a rejection rests
on a combination of references, however, an appellant cannot establish
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner finds that Manolov teaches “determining that the
consumer is finished with the requested first structure and the requested
second structure by accessing at least one record indicating a relationship.”
Ans. 3^4 (citing Manolov Tflf 4, 6, 14, 24, 29, Abstract, Figs. 1, 4, 5a—5d);
see Adv. Act. 2; see also Final Act. 6. More specifically, the Examiner finds
that Manolov teaches a caching method for a relational database where
“cached objects that are associated through relational database relationships
are evicted from the cache as a consequence of not being used.” Ans. 3^4.
The Examiner further finds that a “relational database is known in the art as
a collection of tables” where “each table consists of at least one record
identified by an identifier.” Id. at 3. The Examiner also finds that “the
feature of ‘accessing one record’ to track the relationship between consumer
and requested data object, wherein the ‘record’ comprises a[] consumer ID
and requested data object ID is well known in the art of cache memory . . . .”
Adv. Act. 2. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings concerning
the features known in the art. App. Br. 10—12; Reply Br. 7—10.
In addition, the Examiner finds that Powell teaches “by accessing at
least one record indicating a relationship between the consumer and at least
one of the first structure and the second structure,” where “the at least one
record compris[es] an identity of the consumer and an identity of the at least
one of the first structure and the second structure.” Ans. 4—5 (citing Powell
5
Appeal 2016-002524
Application 13/673,570
47, 49-50, Fig. 4); see Final Act. 6 (citing Powell H 25, 47, Figs. 2, 4);
Adv. Act. 2 (citing Powell H 25, 47, 49, Fig. 4). In particular, the portions
of Powell cited by the Examiner teach that: (1) a session involves an
interactive information exchange between a client and an application server;
(2) a cache stores a session map and a row identifier map; (3) the session
map contains one or more session records; (4) a session record includes (a) a
session identifier (session ID) that identifies a session, (b) a query handle
(query ID) that identifies a query, and (c) a query string corresponding to a
client’s data request; (5) the row identifier map contains one or more sets of
row identifiers determined in response to a client’s data request; and (6) a
session record in the session map has a corresponding row identifier set in
the row identifier map. Powell H 47, 49-50, Fig. 4; see Final Act. 6—7
(citing Powell 25, 47, Figs. 2, 4); Ans. 4; see also Powell 28—30, Fig. 2
(stating “[r]ow ID map based on client ID and query handle”).
Further, Powell Figure 4 illustrates a session map with fields
(columns) for session ID, query handle (query ID), and query string. Powell
Fig. 4. Figure 4 also illustrates a row identifier map with multiple row
identifier sets, where each row identifier set corresponds to a session record
(session ID). Id. For example, the row identifier set “1, 2, 3,. . . N”
corresponds to session ID AB98DSE76 and query handle 1, while the row
identifier set “101, 202, 303,... N” corresponds to session ID AFKF87611
and query handle 3. Id.
The Examiner reasons that “monitoring the cached session ID and
row ID map” containing a row identifier set “corresponds to accessing at
least one of such record for relationship between consumer ID and
structure IDs.” Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner appropriately maps the claimed
6
Appeal 2016-002524
Application 13/673,570
“consumer” to a client in Powell and maps the claimed “first data associated
with a first structure” and “second data associated with a second structure”
to the rows denoted by the row identifier set (structure IDs) corresponding to
the session ID (consumer ID). Hence, Powell teaches accessing a record
according to claim 1.
In addition, the Examiner finds that “Powell further teaches
determining whether a consumer of a data object is currently utilizing the
data object” because Powell discloses that “[t]he cache for a client can be
cleared when the client logs out, or when a session times out.” Ans. 4
(citing Powell 150); see Powell 1 50; see also Ans. 6 (citing Powell 1 50).
Appellant disputes that finding, e.g., because logging out or timing out “is
not equivalent to ‘a relationship between the data object and the consumer of
the data object’ indicated by accessing at least one record.” Reply Br. 8,
9-10. As explained above, however, the Examiner finds that Manolov also
teaches determining whether a consumer of a data object is currently
utilizing the data object, e.g., because data objects “are evicted from the
cache as a consequence of not being used.” Ans. 3^4 (citing Manolov 4,
6, 14, 24, 29, Abstract, Figs. 1, 4, 5a—5d); see Final Act. 6; Adv. Act. 2.
Appellant’s arguments regarding Manolov have not demonstrated error in
that finding. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments regarding Powell have not
demonstrated error in the rejection due to the Examiner’s reliance in the
alternative on Manolov.
Summary for Independent Claims 1,7, and 13
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Manolov, Powell, and Will. For independent claims 7 and 13,
7
Appeal 2016-002524
Application 13/673,570
Appellant relies on the patentability arguments presented for claim 1. App.
Br. 12; Reply Br. 10-11. Hence, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 1, 7, and 13.
Dependent Claims 4—6, 8-12,14,16, and 20
Appellant does not make any separate patentability arguments for
dependent claims 4—6, 8—12, 14, 16, and 20. App. Br. 9-20; Reply Br. 2—22.
Because Appellant does not argue the claims separately, we sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 4—6, 8—12, 14, 16, and 20. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Rejection of Claims 2 and 3 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 2 specifies that:
tracking a consumer that requested the first structure of the
archive file and the second structure of the archive file to be
transferred to the cache memory includes tracking the consumer
via a data structure that relates consumers of data stored in the
cache memory with the data stored in the cache memory.
App. Br. 23 (Claims App.).
Claim 3 similarly specifies that:
tracking a consumer that requested the first structure of the
archive file and the second structure of the archive file to be
transferred to the cache memory includes tracking the consumer
via a data structure that relates consumers of data stored in the
cache memory with the data stored in the cache memory, and
that is located within a cache that contains the cache memory.
App. Br. 23—24 (Claims App.).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 3
because Powell “does not disclose or suggest” (1) tracking consumers of
cache-stored data using a data structure that relates the consumers to the
cache-stored data or (2) a data structure used for consumer tracking and
8
Appeal 2016-002524
Application 13/673,570
“located within a cache that contains the cache memory.” App. Br. 14;
Reply Br. 13. According to Appellant, Powell only “discusses that ‘[e]ach
session record can have a session identifier identifying a session.’” App.
Br. 14 (emphasis omitted); see Reply Br. 13.
The Examiner finds, however, that Powell teaches tracking consumers
of cache-stored data using a data structure that relates the consumers to the
cache-stored data because Powell’s session map and row identifier map
establish a relationship between data objects, i.e., rows denoted by a row
identifier set, and consumers of the data objects, i.e., clients, through session
records with session IDs representing client (consumer) data requests.
Ans. 7; see Final Act. 7—8. The Examiner further finds that Powell teaches a
cache memory that stores the session map and the row identifier map
together with data. Ans. 7; see Final Act. 7—8. Appellant’s arguments have
not apprised us of error in those findings. App. Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 11—13.
The Rejection of Claim 15 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 15 requires a “maintenance module . . . configured to delete a
data object from the memory component of the cache when consumer
information for the data object is no longer tracked by the tracking module.”
App. Br. 26 (Claims App.). Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 15 because Manolov discusses “using the strength of a
reference to the object (i.e., hard vs. weak reference) to determine if an
object is to be deleted” and, therefore, does not disclose or suggest
claim 15’s subject matter. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 14—15.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of Examiner error
because they do not address the Examiner’s findings that Manolov’s data
management service block 204 includes a “maintenance module” according
9
Appeal 2016-002524
Application 13/673,570
to claim 15 because data management service block 204 “removes a data
object from [the] cache when the object is no longer referred to by any
consumer” and the removed data object “is no longer tracked.” See Final
Act. 14.
The Rejection of Claim 17 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 17 requires a “tracking module . . . configured to monitor a
table that relates data objects stored within the memory component of the
cache to one or more active consumers of the data objects.” App. Br. 26
(Claims App.). Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 17 because “Powell discusses that ‘ [t]he cache for a client can be
cleared when the client logs out, or when a session times out’” and,
therefore, does not disclose or suggest claim 17’s subject matter. App.
Br. 18; Reply Br. 18.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of Examiner error
because they do not address the Examiner’s findings that Powell teaches:
(1) a relationship between a session map containing one or more session
records and a row identifier map containing one or more row identifier sets;
(2) a data manager populates a row identifier set in response a client’s data
request; and (3) the data manager references a row identifier set using a
session record with a session ID representing a client (consumer). See
Ans. 8—9 (citing Powell ^fl[ 47, 49-50, Figs. 2, 4).
The Rejection of Claims 18 and 19 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 18 specifies that “the tracking module is configured to track
information identifying a consumer for each data object transferred into the
memory component of the cache.” App. Br. 26 (Claims App.). Claim 19
similarly specifies that “the tracking module is configured to track
10
Appeal 2016-002524
Application 13/673,570
information identifying a consumer for each data object transferred into the
memory component of the cache as well as information identifying a type of
data object transferred into the memory of the cache.” Id. at 27.
For claim 18, Appellant asserts error in the rejection because
(1) “Manolov uses the strength of a reference to an object (i.e., hard vs.
weak reference) to determine if an object is to be deleted” and (2) “Manolov
discusses ... a set of relational database relationships.” App. Br. 19; Reply
Br. 19-20. Based on those aspects of Manolov, Appellant asserts that
Manolov does not disclose or suggest claim 18’s subject matter. App.
Br. 19; Reply Br. 20. But Appellant’s assertions overlook the Examiner’s
finding that Powell teaches “identifying a consumer” according to claim 18.
See Ans. 10 (citing Powell 147, Fig. 4). More specifically, the Examiner
finds that Powell teaches that: (1) a session map contains one or more
session records; (2) a session record includes a session identifier (session ID)
that identifies a session; (3) a session involves an interactive information
exchange between a client and an application server; and (4) the session or
session ID identifies a client, i.e., a consumer. Id. In addition, Powell
teaches tracking “information identifying a consumer for each data object”
because Powell discloses that a cache stores a session map and a row
identifier map that denote relationships between clients (consumers) and
data objects. Powell 42, 47, 49-50, Fig. 4; see Ans. 4—5, 7, 10; see also
Final Act. 6—8; Adv. Act. 2. Appellant’s assertions have not apprised us of
error in those findings. App. Br. 18—19; Reply Br. 18—20.
For claim 19, Appellant asserts error in the rejection because Manolov
discusses “using the strength of a reference to the object (i.e., hard vs. weak
reference) to determine if an object is to be deleted” and, therefore, does not
11
Appeal 2016-002524
Application 13/673,570
disclose or suggest claim 19’s subject matter. App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 21.
Appellant’s assertion has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds that Manolov teaches “identifying a type of data object
transferred into the memory of the cache” because Manolov discloses
“detecting a type of cached data object having strong reference and a type of
cached data object having weak reference.” Ans. 10; Final Act. 15. The
Examiner determines that, under the “broadest reasonable interpretation,”
a type of cached data object having strong reference corresponds to a first
type of cached data object, while a type of cached data object having weak
reference corresponds to a second type of cached data object. Ans. 10.
Appellant does not address the Examiner’s reasoning regarding the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 19. Reply Br. 21—22; see App. Br. 19—20.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s assertions have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18 and 19 for
obviousness based on Manolov and Powell.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12