Ex Parte Kaluskar et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 14, 201411057043 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/057,043 02/11/2005 Sanjay Kaluskar 50277-2386 2072 42425 7590 10/15/2014 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE 1 Almaden Boulevard Floor 12 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/15/2014 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 SANJAY KALUSKAR and SREENIVAS GOLLAPUDI ____________ Appeal 2012-007246 Application 11/057,043 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–13, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35–51. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Ims (US 6,505,200 B1; issued Jan. 7, 2003) teaches a “multi-node Appeal 2012-007246 Application 11/057,043 2 database server,” as recited in independent claim 1.1 The Examiner maps the multi-node database server to Ims’s two data stores. See Ans. 8–9, 36. Ims states: “Application integration middleware technology has been developed . . . to enable application programs to . . . interact with legacy host applications and/or legacy host data stored in a back-end data store (such as a database, directory, or other data storage repository).” Ims 2:5–10 (emphasis added). As a result, Ims’s two data stores, which represent data storage repositories, cannot be mapped to the multi-node database server. Appellants argue Ims’s data stores are merely entities that store data, and do not meet the requirement of claim 1, which recites “each node of the multi-node database server executes a database instance.” See App. Br. 7–8. We agree with Appellants Ims’s data stores are not nodes of a database server, and they do not execute database instances. See App. Br. 7-8. As a result, the Examiner’s findings are deficient because the Examiner fails to show the cited prior art teaches the recited multi-node database server. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–4, 6–9, 11–13, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35–51 for similar reasons. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–13, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35–51 as being obvious over Ims and Song (US 2005/0066037 Al; Mar. 24, 2005) is reversed. 1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not need to address the additional arguments. Appeal 2012-007246 Application 11/057,043 3 REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation