Ex Parte Hu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2014

11729473 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014)

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.
11/729,473 03/28/2007 Yong Hu 50277-3190 5666
42425 7590 10/14/2014
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
PEACH, POLINA G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/14/2014 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 YONG HU, BIPUL SINHA,
AMIT GANESH, JUAN LOAIZA, and
VIVEKANANDHAN RAJA
___________

Appeal 2012-005335
Application 11/729,473
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of
claims 1–13 and 27–39.
1
Claims 14–26 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1
In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
December 28, 2011), Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February
15, 2012), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 25, 2012), the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed August 11, 2011), and the
originally filed Specification (“Spec.,” March 28, 2007).
Appeal 2012-005335
Application 11/729,473

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to clustered database systems that
support distributed transaction processing. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method, comprising:
an external transaction manager initiating, for execution
by a database server of a plurality of database servers, each
transaction branch of a plurality of transaction branches in a
distributed transaction, wherein said external manager
coordinates committing of said distributed transaction, wherein
each database server of said plurality of database servers runs
on a separate computing node of a multi-node server system,
wherein the external manager runs on a node external to the
multi-node server system;
each database server of said plurality of database servers
performing one or more work units of said distributed
transaction as a transaction branch of the plurality of transaction
branches;
wherein said external transaction manager separately
identifies each transaction branch of said distributed transaction
being executed by a database server of said plurality of database
servers;
said multi-node server system creating a database server-
side state stored within said multi-node server system that
tracks transaction branch statuses of the plurality of transaction
branches, the database server-side state being accessible to the
plurality of database servers;
each database server of said plurality of database servers
updating a branch status of a respective transaction branch in
said database server-side state in response to performing a work
unit of said one or more work units of the transaction branch;
before committing or aborting said distributed
transaction, a first database server of said plurality of database
Appeal 2012-005335
Application 11/729,473

3

servers accessing said database server-side state to determine a
branch status of a transaction branch, of said transaction
branches, updated by another database server of said plurality
of database servers;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 27–29, 31, 36, 38, and 39 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McLaughlin (US 7,290,056 B1;
Oct. 30, 2007) and McGoveran (US 2004/0068501 A1; Apr. 8, 2004).
2

Claims 4, 6–9, 11, 30, 32–35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over McLaughlin, McGoveran, and Abe (US
6,052,695; Apr. 18, 2000).

Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. App. Br. 4–17; Reply Br. 1–7. We are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. We adopt as our own the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is

2
The Examiner’s list of claims under this rejection omits claim 13 (Ans. 4)
but includes claims 13 in the body of the rejection (Ans. 10). Appellants
correctly include claim 13 in this rejection in the Grounds of Rejection to be
Reviewed on Appeal section (App. Br. 4) and in their Arguments section
(App. Br. 16). We, therefore, find the Examiner’s omission is harmless
error.
Appeal 2012-005335
Application 11/729,473

4

taken and as set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response
to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 13–28). However, we highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.

CLAIMS 1–3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 27–29, 31, 36, 38, AND 39
ISSUES
Appellants’ arguments present the following issues:
1. Has the Examiner erred finding the combination of McLaughlin
and McGoveran teaches or reasonably suggests, “before
committing or aborting said distributed transaction, a first database
server of said plurality of database servers accessing said database
server-side state to determine a branch status of a transaction
branch, of said transaction branches, updated by another database
server of said plurality of database servers,” as recited in claim 1
(hereinafter, the “First Disputed Limitation”)?
2. Has the Examiner erred finding the combination of McLaughlin
and McGoveran teaches or reasonably suggests, “wherein the
external manager runs on a node external to the multi-node server
system,” as recited in claim 1 (hereinafter, the “Second Disputed
Limitation”)?

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
The Examiner finds McLaughlin discloses the First Disputed
Limitation citing portions of McLaughlin in columns 17, 19, 35, 46, 48, 51,
55, 66, and 67. Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds, “Although McLaughlin
Appeal 2012-005335
Application 11/729,473

5

teaches that uncompleted local statuses are not visible to other participants,
therefore consequently completed statuses are visible to participants in
distributed transaction.” Id. The Examiner finds McGoveran (in
combination with McLaughlin) discloses the same features. Id. (citing
McGoveran ¶¶ 93, 94).
Appellants argue the Examiner’s reasoning is logically flawed by
concluding, from McLaughlin’s disclosure that uncompleted status is not
visible, that McLaughlin’s completed status is visible to nodes processing a
distributed transaction. App. Br. 7–8. We disagree and find no fault in the
Examiner’s reasoning. McLaughlin clearly discloses that each transaction
branch of a distributed transaction processed in hierarchical layers/tiers of
systems must be aware of the completion status of lower layer processing.
See, e.g., McLaughlin, Figs. 4, 5; col. 4, ll. 47–54; see also Ans. 17 (quoting
McLaughlin, col. 55, l. 66 through col. 56, l. 3). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner, at least completed status of lower layers/tiers of the distributed
processing must be visible to higher layers/tiers of the distributed processing
as the Examiner’s logic concludes.
Appellants further argue McGoveran fails to disclose the First
Disputed Limitation, asserting the cited paragraphs (¶¶ 93, 94) disclose
accessing status information relating to different transactions as distinct
from different transaction branches of a single distributed transaction as
claimed. Ans. 8–10. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The
Examiner explains,
Although, upon further examination of McLaughlin’s reference,
it was clearly determined that “data states are visible and
alterable to other users” (Co1.67 lines 35-39), McGovern [sic]
clearly discloses that “intermediate state of A is accessible by
Appeal 2012-005335
Application 11/729,473

6

B” and “a group of transactions can share multiple intermediate
states” (par.[0093]-[0094]). Further, such state “may be made
available to those transactions long before A commits . . .[.]”
Ans. 24. We agree. The Examiner has shown McLaughlin (even alone)
discloses making the status of lower layer/tier processing (i.e., completion
status) accessible to higher layer/tier processing and relies on McGoveran
for disclosing access to an intermediate status of distributed transaction
processing may be in advance of commitment of the transaction (i.e., before
committing the distributed transaction as claimed).
Furthermore, Appellants’ argument improperly attacks the teachings
of the references individually although the rejection is based on the
combined teachings of the references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, “The test for obviousness is not
. . . that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all
of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
Appellants further contend accessing of a server-side access in
McLaughlin cannot occur “before committing or aborting said distributed
transaction.” App. Br. 13–15. Appellants specifically argue, any access to
server-side state information by one server that was updated by another
server does not occur in McLaughlin “before committing or aborting.” App.
Br. 14. Appellants also contend,
Indeed, if the writing of the global transaction type in
McLaughlin is required after pre-commit, commit and global
commit, any action of access by a database server to the global
transaction type cannot occur “before committing or aborting
said distributed transaction,” even if McLaughlin’s global
Appeal 2012-005335
Application 11/729,473

7

transaction type were analogized to the database server-side
state of Claim 1.
Id. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner explains
McLaughlin discloses a transaction manager that commits a distributed
transaction only when all participating transactions (i.e., transaction
branches) are successfully completed and if any failure is detected all
successfully committed or pre-committed transaction branches are rolled
back. Ans. 20. Thus, in McLaughlin, the state of each participating
transaction (transaction branch) is written to a global state table shared by all
participating transactions. Id. We agree. Furthermore, as discussed supra,
any perceived deficiency of McLaughlin in this regard is cured by the
combined teachings of McGoveran.
Having reviewed Appellants’ Reply Brief regarding disclosure of the
First Disputed Limitation (Reply Br. 3–7), we remain unpersuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of McLaughlin and McGoveran
teaches or reasonably suggests the First Disputed Limitation as recited in
claim 1.

Issue 2
Appellants argue the cited portions of McLaughlin fail to disclose an
external transaction manager as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10–13.
Appellants further argue McLaughlin’s reference to a top-level transaction
that acts as a remote controller similarly fails to disclose the recited external
transaction manager contending,
Since McLaughlin describes that the top-level transaction is a
part, i.e., root-level or top-level, of a complex compound
transaction or distributed transaction, McLaughlin’s top-level
transaction cannot simultaneously be a part of the distributed
Appeal 2012-005335
Application 11/729,473

8

transaction as explicitly described in the cited passage, as well
as a claimed transaction manager external to the multi-node
server system that has its multiple database servers executing
each transaction branch of the distributed transaction.
Whichever database server that performs work units of
McLaughlin’s top-level transaction would be a part of a multi-
node server system, not external to the multi-node server
system.
App. Br. 12. We disagree.
The Examiner explains McLaughlin identifies the top-level
transaction as a remote controller for coordinating execution and rollback of
lower layer/tier portions of the distributed transaction (i.e., coordinates
committing of the distributed transaction). Ans. 16–19. The Examiner
further explains a remote controller providing the functions and services
disclosed in numerous citations in McLaughlin (i.e., a “remote transaction
manager”) is analogous to the recited external transaction manager. Ans. 18.
We agree. McLaughlin discloses a distributed transaction is distributed
across multiple systems where each system may comprise one or more
servers. See Ans. 17–18 (citing McLaughlin, col. 5, ll. 50–57). Thus,
McLaughlin teaches or reasonably suggests a top-level transaction, acting as
the remote controller, may be external from the lower layer/tier nodes
processing portions of the distributed transaction (i.e., the plurality of nodes
processing transaction branches as recited).
Having reviewed Appellants’ Reply Brief regarding disclosure of the
Second Disputed Limitation (Reply Br. 2–3), we remain unpersuaded that
the Examiner erred in finding the combination of McLaughlin and
McGoveran teaches or reasonably suggests the Second Disputed Limitation
as recited in claim 1.

Appeal 2012-005335
Application 11/729,473

9

Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Independent claim 27 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 28, 29, 31,
38, and 39 are argued together with claim 1 (App. Br. 16–17) and thus, for
the same reasons as claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 10,
12, 13, 27–29, 31, 38, and 39.

CLAIMS 4, 6–9, 11, 30, 32–35, AND 37
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 6–9, 11,
30, 32–35, and 37 for the same reasons as claims 1 and 27 adding that Abe
does not cure the alleged deficiency of the combination of McLaughlin and
McGoveran. App. Br. 17. For the reasons discussed supra regarding claims
1 and 27, we are unpersuaded of the alleged deficiency of McLaughlin and
McGoveran and we, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 4, 6–9, 11, 30,
32–35, and 37.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1–13
and 27–39 under § 103 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD