Ex Parte Hrle et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 19, 2008

10600221 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 19, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte NAMIK HRLE, JEFFREY WILLIAM JOSTEN,
THOMAS MAJITHIA, and JAMES ZU-CHIA TENG
____________________

Appeal 2007-3001
Application 10/600,221
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: February 19, 2008
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-33.

Appeal 2007-3001
Application 10/600,221

Exemplary claim 1 reads:
1. A database management system comprising:

a mainline database system that makes modifications to data in
the database management system using a write-ahead logging
protocol;

stores data on a first set of storage volumes and stores log
records on a second set of storage volumes;

restores consistency between the log records and the data
during a restart, and while a backup system lock is held by a backup
utility, continues updating objects except for suspending actions that
change an external file system catalog, suspending writing updates of
objects that extend across a storage volume boundary; 1 and

freezing a REDO log point in checkpoint information while the
backup system lock is taken by the backup utility.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kawamaura 5,778,388 Jul. 7, 1998
Mosher 6,785,696 B2 Aug. 31, 2004
All appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of Kawamura and
Mosher.2

1 In our analysis infra, we refer to “suspending writing updates of objects
that extend across a storage volume boundary” as the “exception
requirement.”

2 Hereafter, we refer to the combination of Kawamura and Mosher as the
“combination.”
2
Appeal 2007-3001
Application 10/600,221

The Examiner concludes that the combination renders claims 1-33
obvious. (Ans. 4-25.) Among other allegations, Appellants allege that the
combination does not teach or suggest the exception requirement. (App. Br.
10-11 and 13.) We agree with Appellants.
Kawamura teaches that updating a database involves synchpoint
acquisition. (Col. 1, ll. 17-22.) Kawamura teaches during a lock state of
synchpoint acquisition, disabling input/output operations to external storages
(col. 9, ll. 32-38) but updating a database in external storage during the
entire synchpoint acquisition (col. 16, ll. 44-59 and figs. 23A-23C (depict
database updates during synchpoint acquisition)). However, we find that
Kawamura does not teach or suggest excluding updates that extend across a
storage volume boundary. Moreover, we find that the portion of Kawamura
relied on by the Examiner, namely column 9, lines 52-56, to teach the
exception requirement (Ans. 5 and 19) refers to a counter of output pages
but does not teach or suggest excluding updates that extend across a storage
volume boundary. Accordingly, we find that Kawamura does not teach or
suggest the exception requirement.
Mosher teaches performing a backup operation on the database of
each backup node and undoing any transaction whose presence causes
inconsistency between backup nodes and primary nodes. (Col. 2, ll. 37-45.)
However, we find that Mosher does not teach excluding updates that extend
across a storage volume boundary. Thus, we find that Mosher does not
teach or suggest the exception requirement.
Therefore, we conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination teaches or suggests the exception
3
Appeal 2007-3001
Application 10/600,221

requirement. Accordingly, Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-33 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combined teachings and suggestions of Kawamura and Mosher.
We acknowledge that Appellants present other allegations of
Examiner error. However, because Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination teaches or suggests the
exception requirement, we need not reach Appellants’ other arguments to
decide this appeal.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, we conclude:
(1) Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-33 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings
and suggestions of Kawamura and Mosher.
(2) On the record before us, claims 1-33 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.

REVERSED

clj

G. MARLIN KNIGHT
HOYT & KNIGHT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P.O. BOX 1320
PIONEER, CA 95666
4