Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2018

14270117 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/270,117 05/05/2014 Jonghyun Lee
42425 7590 07/25/2018
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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.
50277-4099 4530
EXAMINER
CHANNA V AJJALA, SRIRAMA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2018 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONGHYUN LEE, YUNRUI LI,
MARESH BABURAO GIRKAR, and
AMRISH SRIVASTAVA
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Oracle International
Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' application relates to "databases, and more specifically, to
checkpoints for databases during media recovery." Spec. ,r 1. Media
recovery, or backups, for databases "are generally scheduled periodically,
with change records recorded for any database changes that occur between
the backups," and "[t]he performance of the media recovery may thus have a
direct impact on query latency and database availability." Spec. ,r 2.
"Periodic checkpointing may be used to safeguard the media recovery
process, allowing the media recovery process to resume from the last
checkpoint rather than from the backup files after a failure occurs." Spec.
,r 4. Appellants' invention provides a more "efficient and high performance
checkpointing for databases during media recovery." Spec. ,r 7. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed material and emphases added, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
applying, for a standby database, a plurality of change
records received from a primary database, the applying creating
one or more queues of dirty buffers, each dirty buffer having a
logical time of a change record that was applied into said
dirty buffer;
maintaining a mapping for a plurality of system clock
timestamps, wherein each system clock timestamp of said
plurality of system clock timestamps is mapped to a logical time
of a particular change record of said plurality of change records,
said particular change record being a latest applied change record
for the standby database as of the logical time that corresponds
to said each system clock timestamp;
[A.] using the mapping, determining a target logical time
mapped to a target system clock timestamp that is prior to a
present system clock timestamp by at least a checkpoint delay;
[B.] creating a checkpoint describing one or more
database files of the standby database at a consistent logical
2
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
time, wherein the creating writes a set of dirty buffers, from
the one or more queues of dirty buffers, that have logical times
up to the target logical time;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices.
The Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention, namely
the clause "maintaining a mapping ... said particular change record being a
latest applied change record ... each ... timestamp" recited in each of
independent claims 1, 8, and 14. Final Act. 10. This rejection has been
withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 2), and is, therefore, not before us on
appeal. Accordingly, we do not address Appellants' arguments (App. Br.
6-10) in this regard herein.
(2) Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 11-14. That is, the
claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter because the claimed
invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Specifically,
the Examiner determines that claims 1-20 are drawn to the abstract idea of
creating queues of dirty buffers and creating checkpoints for database files.
Final Act. 12; Ans. 4--11. For purposes of analysis below, claim 1 is
illustrative. 2
2 Appellants present arguments as to the eligibility of claims 1, 8, and 14
(App. Br. 10), primarily addressing claim 1 (see App. Br. 10-18; Reply Br.
6-13). Independent claims 8 and 14 recited commensurate limitations as
3
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
(3) Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kawamura (US 2006/0010180 Al; publ. Jan. 12, 2006)
and Diaconu (US 2014/0172803 Al; publ. June 19, 2014). Final Act.
15-20; Ans. 15-19.
Issues on Appeal
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20 as being obvious
because the combination of Kawamura and Diaconu fails to teach or suggest
the checkpointing method, including limitations [A.] and [B. ], as set forth in
independent claim 1 supra, and as commensurately set forth in remaining
independent claims 8 and 14?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 11-20) in
light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred (App. Br. 10-21;
Reply Br. 2-13), in light of the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief ( Ans. 2-19). We agree with Appellants'
arguments as to both and eligibility and obviousness issues.
Section JOI -Patent Eligibility
Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is determined using the Alice/Mayo
framework. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 234 7 (2014 ).
limitations [A.] and [B.] of claim 1. Therefore, the below discussion of
claim 1 is determinative of our outcome related to the § 101 rejection for all
claims. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss claims 2-20
further.
4
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
The first step involves determining whether the claims at issue are directed
to a patent-ineligible concept. Id. at 2355. The second step involves
determining whether the elements of the claim contain an inventive concept
sufficient to transform a claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible
application. Id. at 2357. The "inventive concept" may arise in one or more
of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the
limitations. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
In Bascom, the Federal Circuit deferred consideration of the specific
claim limitations' narrowing effect for Alice step two. BASCOM Global
Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit held that determining whether the
claimed inventive concept is a technical improvement can aid in evaluating
the second step in the Alice/ Mayo framework:
The district court thus concluded [ wrongly] that BASCOM had
not asserted adequately that the claims disclose an inventive
concept because the limitations, "considered individually, or as
an ordered combination, are no more than routine additional
steps involving generic computer components and the Internet,
which interact in well-known ways to accomplish the abstract
idea of filtering Internet content." [District Court Order, 107 F.
Supp.3d at 655.]
We agree with the district court that the limitations of the claims,
taken individually, recite generic computer, network and Internet
components, none of which is inventive by itself. BASCOM does
not assert that it invented local computers, ISP servers, networks,
network accounts, or filtering. Nor does the specification
describe those elements as inventive.
However, we disagree with the district court's analysis of the
ordered combination of limitations. . .. As is the case here, an
5
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-
generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces .
. . . . [T]he patent describes how its particular arrangement of
elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of
filtering such content.
Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1349--50 (bracketed matter and emphasis added).
Alice/Mayo - Step 1
The Examiner finds claims 1-20 are patent-ineligible because
independent claim 1 is directed toward the abstract ideas of (i) a "data
structure having one or more queues of dirty buffers, checkpoints for
databases" (Final Act. 12); (ii) "creating queues of dirty buffers, creating
checkpoint[ s] for database files" (id.); and (iii) "collecting, manipulating
data" (Ans. 4; see also Ans. 9).
Instead of using a definition of an abstract idea, "the decisional
mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in which a similar
or parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what prior cases were about, and
which way they were decided." Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); accord United
States Patent and Trademark Office, JULY 2015 UPDATE: SUBJECT MATTER
ELIGIBILITY, 1-11 (July 30, 2015), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/ieg-july-2015-update.pdf (instructing Examiners that "a claimed
concept is not identified as an abstract idea unless it is similar to at least one
concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea") (id. at 3). As
part of this inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over
the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to
6
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838
F.3d 1253, 1257-58 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted).
Here, Appellants' claims are directed not only to (i) collecting and
manipulating data; and (ii) creating queues of dirty buffers and checkpoints
for database files, but to using a mapping to determine a target logical time
mapped to a target system clock timestamp that is prior to a present system
clock timestamp by at least a checkpoint delay (limitation [A.] recited in
claim 1, and commensurately recited in claims 8 and 14), and then creating a
checkpoint at a consistent logical time by writing a set of dirty buffers
having logical times up to the target logical time (limitation [B.] recited in
claim 1, and commensurately recited in claims 8 and 14). Appellants
disclose in the Specification that using the mapping to determine a logical
time stamp, which in tum allows the creation of incremental checkpoints
based on an adjustable delay, "allows the checkpointing process to be load
balanced over time, keeping the standby database responsive for other
processes, such as a read-only standby database" (Spec. ,r 19; see also ,r,r
63---69 ( discussing creating checkpoint 194 at a consistent logical time) and
,r,r 73-7 5 ( adjusting checkpoint time delay 192 for efficient operation)).
And, claims 1, 8, and 14 each recite using a mapping to determine a target
logical time based on a checkpoint delay, which in tum allows the creation
of incremental checkpoints based on the adjustable delay. In this light, we
agree with Appellants' contentions (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 6-8) that
claims 1, 8, and 14 are directed to technical improvements in computer
7
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
performance by load balancing in order to improve the quality and
reliability, and, thus, claims 1, 8, and 14 are patent-eligible.
And, although the Examiner states in the Answer that the subject
matter of claims 1, 8, and 14 "is not meaningfully different than those
performing checkpoints for databases found by the courts to be abstract
idea[s]" (Final Act. 12), we agree instead with Appellants that "the subject
matter eligibility of checkpoints for databases has not been decided by the
courts or categorically by the Office" (App. Br. 16). The Examiner has not
pointed to, and we are not aware of, any binding case that determined the
eligibility of checkpointing for databases.
Finally, we agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 9--11) that the
Examiner's reliance on Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792
F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Content Extraction and Trans. v. Wells
Fargo Bank, 776. F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) is misplaced because the
claims at issue in these cases differ from claims 1, 8, and 14 before us in the
instant case on appeal (which are directed to computer-functionality
improvements as previously explained).
Alice/Mayo - Step 2
In the event that the claims are considered to be directed to an abstract
idea, we tum to step 2. The Examiner finds the claims "do not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both
individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea" (Final Act. 12; see also Ans. 7).
8
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
The Examiner determines the method of claim 1 (i) is performed by
the computing device using generic computer components (e.g., a database
and/or database structure) to perform routine and conventional activities
such as to create and/or write dirty buffers from queues (Final Act. 12-13);
and (ii) "merely describe[s] the 'creating checkpoint' function of the abstract
idea itself, without particularity" (Ans. 7). The Examiner, thus, determines
the recited steps/elements recited in claim 1, taken individually or as an
ordered combination, (i) "recite no more than routine steps of 'using the
mapping [ ... ] '; [ ']creating a checkpoint [ ... ] ', using generic database
computer and conventional database processing activities" (Ans. 7); and (ii)
"neither improve the functions of the database computer itself, nor provide
specific 'checkpoint' or meaningful guidance for implementing the abstract
concept" (id.).
The Examiner also determines that determining a logical time and
creating a checkpoint as recited in claim 1 "aris[ es] in the realm of computer
database technology" (Ans. 11 ), "recite merely generic 'creating a
checkpoint' in [a] database" (Ans. 7), and "when considered as an
arrangement, do not provide a significant improvement to existing
technological processes" (Ans. 11 ).
Although the recited dirty buffers, queues, and database limitations
recited in claim 1 may be conventional and routine in the computer arts (see
Mortgage Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 1314,
1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that components such an "interface,"
"network," and "database" are generic computer components that do not
satisfy the inventive concept requirement)), as an ordered combination the
recited steps/elements in the claims do amount to significantly more.
9
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
Specifically, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 18-20;
Reply Br. 11-13) that the steps of (i) using a mapping to determine a target
logical time, and (ii) creating incremental checkpoints using adjusted delays,
the created checkpoints involving writing dirty buffers, having logical times
up to the determined target logical time, from queue(s) render claims 1, 8,
and 14 recite significantly more than the abstract idea of simply creating
checkpoints for databases.
Additionally, as to claim 1 steps [A.] and [B. ], we disagree with the
Examiner's conclusion that these steps are routine and conventional. These
steps recite specific limitations that require the Examiner to undertake a
more specific analysis to show they are routine and conventional. We do not
find such specific analysis in the rejection on appeal. See, e.g., Ans. 7, 9, 11.
That is, we conclude the Examiner has provided insufficient analysis or
support to show steps [A.] and [B.] are routine and conventional. Therefore,
there is insufficient support in the record, for a conclusion that the detailed
functions and elements of the claimed invention do not transform the
abstract idea into eligible subject matter. As our reviewing court noted in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016), it is important to determine "whether the claims ... focus on a
specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are
instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely
invoke generic processes and machinery." Id. at 1314. In other words, a
claim that defines the way by which a computer-related result is achieved is
distinguishable from a patent-ineligible claim that simply describes a result.
Here, the specific limitations of claims 1, 8, and 14 provide a way of
achieving improved checkpointing for a standby database using time
10
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
mapping, resulting in load balancing. Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 14 are
directed to "a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology" and not simply "a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea."
Id.
Summary
We, therefore, find independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract
idea. And, even assuming claim 1 was drawn to an abstract idea, we find
claim 1 also contains an inventive concept, and recites a technical
improvement, sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application. Accordingly, claim 1 is drawn to patent eligible subject
matter. As indicated previously, independent claims 8 and 14, as well as
dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20, are similar in scope to claim 1.
Accordingly, for similar reasons to those discussed above, we find the
Examiner erred in finding claims 1-20 to be patent-ineligible.
Obviousness
The Examiner finds Kawamura teaches all of the recited method steps
recited in claim 1, except for the limitation "' a plurality of timestamps with
respect to change of records"' (Final Act. 17), and relies on Diaconu as
disclosing "'a plurality of timestamps with respect to change of records"'
(id.). See Final Act. 16-18. The Examiner finds the combination of
Kawamura and Diaconu discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1,
including that Kawamura teaches (i) using a mapping to determine a target
logical time as recited in limitation [A.] (Final Act. 1 7 ( citing Kawamura
,r,r 77, 80-82)); and (ii) creating a checkpoint by writing dirty buffers having
logical times up to the target logical time as recited in limitation [B.] (Final
Act. 17 (citing Kawamura ,r,r 80-84)). See Final Act. 16-17; Ans. 2-6.
11
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
Appellants contend, among other things, that Kawamura fails to teach
limitation [A.] and limitation [B.]. See App. Br. 10-14. We are persuaded
by Appellants' arguments.
Limitation [A.] of claim 1 recites:
using the mapping, determining a target logical time
mapped to a target system clock timestamp that is prior to a
present system clock timestamp by at least a checkpoint delay.
Limitation [B.] of claim 1 recites:
creating a checkpoint describing one or more database
files of the standby database at a consistent logical time, wherein
the creating writes a set of dirty buffers, from the one or more
queues of dirty buffers, that have logical times up to the target
logical time.
Kawamura discloses (i) a disaster recovery method utilizing a
checkpoint processing section 112 to transmit status/log information
(Kawamura Title; Abstr.; ,r,r 45, 65, 81, 82; Fig. 6); and (ii) using mapping
tables 15 and 35 indicating log and status information (Kawamura ,r,r 75, 77,
79). However, Kawamura is silent as to creating checkpoints by writing
dirty buffers from queues having logical times up to a target logical time, as
set forth in limitation [B. ], and doing so using a mapping to determine a
target logical time mapped according to a checkpoint delay, as set forth in
limitation [A.].
Specifically, paragraphs 80-84 of Kawamura, relied on by the
Examiner as teaching this limitation, merely disclose "checkpoint
acquisition" (i-f 81 ), wherein checkpoint processing section 112 "stores status
information indicating the location of the log record at that time"
12
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
(i-f 81) ( emphasis added), and processes "the status information indicating the
location of the log record that is the latest at that time point" (,I 82)
( emphasis added).
We agree with Appellants that the recited "target logical time is
historical, not current, because Claim 1 recites 'a checkpoint delay'" (App.
Br. 10). As a result, we agree with Appellants that "Kawamura does not
disclose creating a checkpoint ... [ wherein the creating] writes dirty buffers
that have logical times up to the target logical time, as Claim 1 specifies"
(App. Br. 11). Finally, we also agree with Appellants' contentions (App. Br.
11-12) that Kawamura only indicates a storage location of log records, and
does not disclose each dirty buffer having a logical time.
In view of the foregoing, we are constrained by the record to find the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and
14, which recite commensurate limitations, and respective dependent claims
2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 for the same reasons.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter.
(2) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as being obvious
because the combination of Kawamura and Diaconu fails to teach or suggest
the checkpointing method, including limitations [A.] and [B. ], as set forth in
independent claim 1 supra, and as commensurately set forth in remaining
independent claims 8 and 14.
13
Appeal2018-001590
Application 14/270, 117
(3) On this record, claims 1-20 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
REVERSED
14