Ex Parte Karri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2017

13673963 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 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.
13/673,963 11/09/2012 Rajeev Karri 6955-0105 8914
78855 7590
Patent Capital Group
Attention: Della L. Gonzales
9222 Church Road, Suite 118
Dallas, TX 75231
06/15/2017 EXAMINER
HOANG, KEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2017 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):
patbradford @patcapgroup.com
PAIR_78855 @ patcapgroup.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAJEEV KARRI, AMIT AGARWAL,
and SIDDARTH WARDHAN
Appeal 2017-003735
Application 13/673,9631
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—36, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is o9 Solutions, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-003735
Application 13/673,963
INVENTION
Appellants’ application relates to managing changes to a data
structure. Spec. |1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter
and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
identifying a proposed modification to at least one
particular record of a base data structure, wherein the base data
structure comprises a plurality of records and is sorted by
primary key of the plurality of records;
identifying a type of modification of the proposed
modification, wherein the type comprises a particular one of a
plurality of modification types;
identifying that a particular one of a plurality of
differential data structures corresponds to the particular type,
wherein each of the plurality of differential data structures
corresponds to a respective one of the plurality of modification
types;
adding a record to the particular differential data
structure corresponding to the particular type, wherein the
record of the particular differential data structure comprises a
row within the particular differential data structure and
describes the proposed modification; and
adding a record to a delta data structure, wherein the
delta data structure is sorted by the primary key, and the record
of the delta data structure includes the primary key value of the
particular record, the type of the proposed modification, and a
pointer comprising a row number within the particular
differential data structure of the row of the record added to the
particular differential data structure.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 3—36 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Heman et al. (US 2010/0235335 Al, published
Sept. 16, 2010) (“Heman”). Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal 2017-003735
Application 13/673,963
Claim 2 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Heman and Hansen et al. (US
6,886,016 B2, issued Apr. 26, 2005) (“Hansen”). Final Act. 31.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Claims 1 and 3—3 6
In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated, the Examiner found that Heman
discloses all of the contested limitations of claim 1.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Heman does not
disclose the limitation “a delta data structure, wherein the delta data
structure is sorted by the primary key, and the record of the delta data
structure includes the primary key value of the particular record, the type of
the proposed modification, and a pointer comprising a row number within
the particular differential data structure of the row of the record added to the
particular differential data structure,” recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13.
Appellants argue the PDT structure and value tables in Heman do not
disclose the recited “delta data structure” and “differential data structures,”
respectively. Id. at 12. Appellants further argue “[njowhere in Heman is
there support for the notion that either (or both) of the SID and RID
3
Appeal 2017-003735
Application 13/673,963
reference a row of a differential data table. Id. at 13. In particular,
Appellants argue Heman’s SID and RID are references to stable table 56,
which the Examiner maps to the “base data structure,” recited in claim 1. Id.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner found Heman’s PDT (read-positional delta tree) structure and
value tables disclose the recited “delta data structure” and “differential data
structure,” respectively. Final Act. 3—5; Ans. 2—3 (citing Heman Fig. 10,
Table 2, || 46, 84). The Examiner found Heman’s PDT data structure 70’
includes SIDs (Stable IDs), which point to tuples in an underlying table. Id.
The Examiner further found Heman’s PDT includes RIDs (current Row
IDs), where RID values are computed as new differential updates to the PDT
data structure and each operation/row in the PDT structure will be assigned a
RID. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. The Examiner also found Heman’s SID and
RID together disclose the limitation “primary key value of the particular
record,” recited in claim 1, where SID points to the record of a table and
RID is a pointer identifying the row number of the record added to the
particular differential data structure. Final Act. 5 (citing Heman Table 2,
1146, 83, 84). The Examiner concluded, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, the limitation “a pointer comprising a row number within the
particular differential data structure of the row of the record added to the
particular differential data structure” is broad enough to encompass Heman’s
RID.2 Ans. 4.
2 “Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (FedCir. 1999).
4
Appeal 2017-003735
Application 13/673,963
Appellants have not persuasively shown the Examiner’s interpretation
of the limitation “primary key value of the particular record,” is overly
broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification.3 We agree with
the Examiner’s broad, but reasonable, claim interpretation, which supports
the Examiner’s finding that Heman’s PDT data structure key (SID, RID),
which is a unique key of a corresponding table (Table 2), discloses the
contested limitation
adding a record to a delta data structure, wherein the delta data
structure is sorted by the primary key, and the record of the
delta data structure includes the primary key value of the
particular record, the type of the proposed modification, and a
pointer comprising a row number within the particular
differential data structure of the row of the record added to the
particular differential data structure,
as recited in claim 1. Ans. 2-4. We find a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding of anticipation because Heman’s PDT data
structure, which includes a SID, the type field, and INS, DEL and MOD type
of modification values, discloses “the delta structure is sorted by the primary
key . . . includes the primary key value of the particular record, the type of
the proposed modification,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3^4. Furthermore,
Heman’s RID, which is a pointer identifying the row number of the newly
added record within the particular differential data structure, discloses the
disputed limitation “a pointer comprising a row number . . . ,” recited in
claim 1. Ans. 4. Because Appellants do not address the Examiner’s
findings regarding Heman’s PDT data structure, SID, and RID in a Reply
3 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
5
Appeal 2017-003735
Application 13/673,963
Brief, we find Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
factual findings and conclusions.4
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Heman discloses the contested limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
representative independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner's rejection of
claims 3—36, for which Appellants make no additional arguments. App.
Br. 11-13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 2
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to the obviousness rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (see App.
Br. 13—14), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2. Arguments not
made are waived.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—36.5
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).
AFFIRMED
4 We note Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner’s
additional findings and clarifications in the Answer. Arguments not made
are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to
determine whether claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Alice and its
progeny. See Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
6