Ex Parte Luotojarvi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

12249378 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
12/249,378 10/10/2008 Mika Luotojarvi 1034382-000027 1612
129925 7590 12/30/2016
ABB Inc EXAMINER
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
One Indiana Square
LO, ANN J
Suite 3500
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2023
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
taft-ip-docket @ taftlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKA LUOTOJARVI, RIKU HYTTINEN,
and
TOMI VIHTARI
Appeal 2015-005874
Application 12/249,378
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-005874
Application 12/249,378
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “a method, a computer readable
medium and a system for replicating databases (Spec. 1:4—5).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for replicating databases, in which method
at least two databases are replicated, each database having one
or more tables, and each table having data and a unique tree
index that includes index keys and hierarchical sums of cyclic
redundancy check values calculated from the data on each tree
index level, the method comprising:
continuously receiving data from a data source;
storing, in each database, the received data in a respective
table in real time;
maintaining, as data is stored in the respective tables of
each database, logical consistency of the data between
corresponding tables in the databases by comparing the sums of
cyclic redundancy check values of the database tables
continuously at run time;
if a difference between the sums of the cyclic redundancy
check values is found, logically dividing the tree indexes into
two sub tree indexes, and comparing the sums of the cyclic
redundancy check values of the sub tree indexes to each other;
continuing the comparison of cyclic redundancy check
values and division of tree indexes until inconsistent data
causing the difference is found; and
replicating the inconsistent data between the databases.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
2
Appeal 2015-005874
Application 12/249,378
The Examiner rejected claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The Examiner rejected claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Fabien Coelho, Remote Comparison of Database
Tables Technical Report A/3 75/CRI, 1—12 (Feb. 6, 2006) (hereinafter
“Coelho”) and Bower (US 2006/0195759 Al, published Aug. 31, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The Examiner finds the claim limitation “continuously receiving data
from a data source” is not supported by Appellants’ Specification (Final.
Act. 6). The Examiner also finds “[T]he disclosure fails to show support for
replicating at least two databases by continuously receiving data from a data
source and storing, in each database, the received data in a respective table
in real time. The embodiment described in the specification describes one
data source and one database that receive the data.” (Ans. 3 4).
Appellants cite to page 9, lines 14—19] of their Specification as
providing support for this limitation (App. Br. 2, 6—9). However, this
portion of the Specification recites:
The real time process information management has the following
characteristics, for instance: input data flow from process
equipment ranging from 10 to 100000 data rows per second
continuously for history recording into the database; continuous
data processing, aggregating, and storing of the input data flow
to aggregated history values; storage of other relational
3
Appeal 2015-005874
Application 12/249,378
application data in the same database; 1 second response time
with high data access performance to applications and users.
There is nothing in this section regarding continuously receiving data from a
data source; rather this section merely recites “continuous data processing”
without stating where the data is coming from. Additionally, none of the
Figures show an input for continuously receiving data.
Appellants additionally assert “one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that the corresponding passage from Appellant’s disclosure,
describes the manner in which the input data flow is received from process
equipment” (App. Br. 7; referring to Spec. 9:14—19). To the extent
Appellants argue the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art
satisfies the written description requirement, we disagree. To satisfy the
plain language of § 112,11, an adequate disclosure in the specification must
be provided; Appellants cannot simply rely on the knowledge of a person of
ordinary skill to serve as a substitute for the information missing from the
specification.
Therefore, for the reasons above, we agree with the Examiner this
limitation is not supported by Appellants’ Specification.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The Examiner finds the limitation “continuously receiving data from a
data source” is “not found in the specification” (Final Act. 7). The Examiner
explains “It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Examiner interprets
this as data continuously received for the moment in time” (id.).
Additionally, the Examiner finds “continuously receive data” can mean
“there is boundless amount of data received from the data source” or “when
data is available, therefore not continuously being received, based on the
features of the process equipment used, data is recorded continuously 10 to
4
Appeal 2015-005874
Application 12/249,378
10000[sic] data rows per second” (Ans. 6). Therefore, this limitation has
multiple interpretations.
“Rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we
hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim
constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more
precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding
the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite” (Exparte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential)).
It is also unclear what structural elements perform the recited steps.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner the claims are amenable to two or
more plausible claim interpretations and the claims do not apprise a person
of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the claims.1
Thus, we conclude the recited method steps are amenable to two or
more plausible claim constructions under a broad but reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Coelho and Bower disclose the claim limitations because “[tjhere is no
evidence in the disclosures of the cited art, or otherwise, any art of record
that SQL queries are or can be run continuously at run time” (App. Br. 12).
Appellants state Coelho “would require approximately 10,000,000 seconds”
1 As the Examiner further finds, claim 1, for example, also recites “at least
two databases are replicated,” however, the body of claim 1 recites
“replicating the inconsistent data between databases” and not the databases
themselves (Ans. 5).
5
Appeal 2015-005874
Application 12/249,378
to verily and fix the consistency once, thus, it would be impossible for
Coelho to use the techniques disclosed to process the data and maintain
consistent data entries at all times (id.). We do not agree.
First, we note Appellants do not claim what type of queries are being
used. Second, Appellants do not claim how large the database tables are.
Third, Appellants merely state SQL queries cannot be run consistently at run
time, providing only attorney argument without evidence to the contrary.
Lastly, Coelho does not preclude performing queries continuously at run
time as claimed.
Additionally a table of fewer rows/records would not take that long to
perform checksums in real time using SQL; thus, the query could be
continuous, albeit it may take a long time for a very large table. Therefore,
there is no reason SQL queries (comparing checksums) cannot be run
continuously at run time.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—14
as obvious over Coelho and Bower.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C.
§112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C.
§112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed.
6
Appeal 2015-005874
Application 12/249,378
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
7