Ex Parte Fang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13406758 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/406,758 02/28/2012
99337 7590 07/29/2016
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ru Fang
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.
ARC920110055US 1
(890.016)
CONFIRMATION NO.
6372
EXAMINER
MIAN, MUHAMMAD U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2016 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 RU FANG, BIN HE, HUI-I HSIAO,
CHANDRASEKARAN MOHAN, and RENE MUELLER1
Appeal2014-009310
Application 13/406,758
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009310
Application 13/406,758
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to "supporting bi-temporal data in a
key value cache system." Abstract. In a disclosed embodiment, data objects
stored in memory are organized using a hash structure. Spec. i-fi-133-34. In
each hash chain element, there are two pointers---one pointing to a current
version of the object and the other to a historical version of the object. Spec.
i134. According to the Specification, supporting bi-temporal data is
important for data management, or when historical versions of data are
needed (e.g., to determine trends). Spec. i120.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method for providing a bi-temporal key value cache
system, comprising:
storing a key directory having at least one key element
pointing to a data object;
receiving a query request for said data object, said data
object being stored in a key value cache;
responsive to receiving said query request for said data
object stored in said key value cache, searching said key
directory for said at least one key element pointing to said data
object;
identifying said at least one key element pointing· to said
data object requested;
searching a current table and a historical table stored in
said key value cache for said data object requested, wherein both
a current version and at least one historical version of said data
object are stored in said key value cache;
determining from said current version and at least one
historical version of said data object which version is to be
returned;
2
Appeal2014-009310
Application 13/406,758
reading said determined version of said data object from
said key value cache using a pointer to said determined version
of said data object; and
returning said determined version of said data object in
response to said query request for said data object;
wherein said at least one key element comprises a hash
chain element comprising two pointers which point, respectively,
to said current version and said at least one historical version of
said data object.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 11-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 6-7
2. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mattis et al. (US
6,915,307 Bl; July 5, 2005) ("Mattis") and Biswal et al. (US 7,509,307 B2;
Mar. 24, 2009) ("Biswal"). Final Act. 7-19.
3. Claims 3-5, 8, 13-15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mattis, Biswal, and Johnston et al. (US
2011/0320419 Al; Dec. 29, 2011) ("Johnston"). Final Act. 19-22.
4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mattis, Biswal, and Shoham (US 2011/0184886 Al;
July 28, 2011 ). Final Act. 22-23.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Mattis and Biswal
teaches or suggests "wherein said at least one key element comprises a hash
chain element comprising two pointers which point, respectively, to said
3
Appeal2014-009310
Application 13/406,758
current version and said at least one historical version of said data object," as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS2
Re} ection under 3 5 U.S. C. § 101
Appellants do not present any argument contesting the rejection of
claims 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory
subject matter. "If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not
addressed in the appellant's brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily
sustained by the Board." Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1205.02
(Rev. 9, Aug. 2012). Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 1033
In rejecting claim 1, inter alia, the Examiner relies on the combined
teachings of Mattis and Biswal. Appellants contend "[ w ]hile Biswal does
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
March 10, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief filed August 4, 2014 ("Reply
Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on June 2, 2014 ("Ans."); and the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed on November 7, 2013, from which
this Appeal is taken.
3 Appellants indicate that only the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16,
17, 19, and 20 are being appealed. App. Br. 5, 13. However, Appellants
assert '[b ]y virtue of proper dependence from Claims 1 and 11, it is
submitted that Claims 2-10 and 12-19 similarly distinguish." App. Br. 14.
"An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all
claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the
applicant and entered by the Office." 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 l(c). Accordingly,
for purposes of this Appeal, we shall assume Appellants are appealing the
rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
4
Appeal2014-009310
Application 13/406,758
touch on different 'versions' of data, there is nothing in either reference to
teach or suggest the employment of a hash chain element comprising two
pointers, for use with a current version and at least one historical version of a
data object." App. Br. 14.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
requires more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
Additionally, non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the
combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the
patentee's invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error because Appellants'
arguments are not responsive to the Examiner's rejection and attack the
references separately, whereas the Examiner's rejection relies on the
combined teachings of Mattis and Biswal. Specifically, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, Mattis teaches a key value cache system comprising a "vector
of alternates," which has pointers to alternate versions of a data object. Final
Act. 7-9; Ans. 2 (citing Mattis, col. 10, 11. 44--47, col. 13, 1. 43---col. 14, 1. 14,
Fig. 4A). As the Examiner explains, "the vector of alternates is interpreted
as a hash chain element comprising pointers to different versions of a data
object." Ans. 2. Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Biswal
5
Appeal2014-009310
Application 13/406,758
teaches maintaining the historical and current versions of data objects. Final
Act. 9-10; Ans. 3 (citing Biswal, col. 3, 11. 6-60). Further, the Examiner
explains it would have been obvious to modify the teaching of Mattis with
those of Biswal to allow "the key value cache system of Mattis to keep track
of changes to information over time, fulfilling the need well-known in the
art." Ans. 3 (citing Biswal, col. 1, 11. 11-53).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 11 and 20, which recite similar limitations.
Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-10
and 12-19, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 14.
DECISION
We summarily affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6