Ex Parte Klemm

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

11383271 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/383,271 05/15/2006
48500 7590 07/27/2018
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Reinhard Peter Klemm
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
4366-834 7421
EXAMINER
TRAN,BAOG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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):
cjacquet@sheridanross.com
pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com
edocket@sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REINHARD PETER KLEMM
Appeal 2017-011432
Application 11/383,271 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 23--43, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011432
Application 11/383,271
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's application relates to the generation of persistent data
objects that have mutable keys. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 23 is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
23. A method comprising:
generating, via a processor, a non-persistent object
instance, the non-persistent object instance comprising (i) a
persistent field having a first value and (ii) a mutable primary
key comprising data that uniquely identifies the non-persistent
object instance, the data having a mutable value that can change
during a life of the non-persistent object instance, wherein the
first value of the persistent field is configured to be mirrored in
a database via a persistent object instance;
generating a first persistent object instance, the first
persistent object instance comprising (i) a first immutable
primary key associated with the mutable primary key and (ii) a
foreign key;
generating a second persistent object instance comprising
(i) a second immutable primary key associated with the foreign
key and (ii) a second value configured to mirror the first value;
and
mirroring the second value to a database persistent store.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 23, 24, 26-31, 33-38, and 40--43 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Saltz (US 2003/0221073 Al;
Nov. 27, 2003), Garthwaite et al. (US 7,089,272 Bl; Aug. 8, 2006), and
Ivanova et al. (US 7,590,639 Bl; Sept. 15, 2009). Final Act. 5-14.
2
Appeal 2017-011432
Application 11/383,271
Claims 25, 32, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Saltz, Garthwaite, Ivanova, and Bennett (US
6,694,328 Bl; Feb. 17, 2004). Final Act. 14-16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of
Appellant's contentions and the evidence of record. Appellant persuades us
the Examiner fails to establish that the claims are unpatentable over the cited
references.
The Examiner finds Ivanova teaches "generating a first persistent
object instance, the first persistent object instance comprising (i) a first
immutable primary key associated with the mutable primary key and (ii) a
foreign key" and "generating a second persistent object instance comprising
(i) a second immutable primary key associated with the foreign key and (ii) a
second value configured to mirror the first value," as recited in claim 23.
Final Act. 8-10; Ans. 5-6.
In particular, the Examiner finds Ivanova teaches each table 610 in
relational database 612 is identified by its primary key, such as an employee
ID number. Ans. 5 (citing Ivanova 8:44-52). The Examiner finds a
persistent field in persistence management layer 400 is used to store the
primary key. Id. The Examiner further finds the persistent data object has a
foreign key to another persistent data object. Id. at 6.
The Examiner interprets the limitation "a second value configured to
mirror the first value" in claim 23 to "reasonably broadly" mean "a foreign
key associated with the first value of an object." Ans. 6. The Examiner
finds I vanova teaches this limitation "in an equivalent manner" by disclosing
3
Appeal 2017-011432
Application 11/383,271
persistent data objects A and B have a relational dependency wherein
persistent data object B has a foreign key to persistent data object A. Id.
( citing Ivanova 11 :42-55).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Ivanova teaches a
relationship between two persistent data objects, but Ivanova does not teach
a persistent data object that has a first immutable primary key "associated
with the mutable primary key of a non-persistent object instance." App.
Br. 9-10. According to Appellant, Ivanova's teachings are limited to
relationships between two persistent objects. Id.
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 23 recites, in
relevant part, "generating, via a processor, a non-persistent object instance,
the non-persistent object instance comprising (i) a persistent field having a
first value." Claim 23 further recites "generating a second persistent object
instance comprising ... (ii) a second value configured to mirror the first
value." The claimed "second value" is configured to mirror "the first
value," which is stored in a persistent field in a non-persistent object
instance. As argued by Appellant, the Examiner has failed to adequately
explain how Ivanova's disclosure of a foreign key establishing a relationship
between two persistent objects teaches or suggests "a second value
configured to mirror the first value" where the "first value" is in a persistent
field of a non-persistent object instance.
Accordingly, on this record we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 23 as unpatentable over Saltz, Garthwaite, and Ivanova. 2
We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 30 and 37, which
2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other arguments.
4
Appeal 2017-011432
Application 11/383,271
recite commensurate limitations, and claims 24, 26-29, 31, 33-36, 38, and
40-53, dependent therefrom.
Claims 25, 32, and 39 stand rejected as unpatentable over Saltz,
Garthwaite, Ivanova, and Bennett. See Final Act. 15-16. The Examiner
does not find Bennett teaches "generating a second persistent object instance
comprising (i) a second immutable primary key associated with the foreign
key and (ii) a second value configured to mirror the first value." See id.
Accordingly, the Examiner does not find Bennett cures the deficiencies of
Saltz, Garthwaite, and Ivanova. We, therefore, also do not sustain the
rejection of claims 25, 32, and 39 for the same reasons explained as claim
23.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 23--43.
REVERSED
5