Ex Parte Masson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201713081062 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017) 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. 13/081,062 04/06/2011 Arnaud Masson 026436-9102-02 3141 137160 7590 02/01/2017 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Merge/IBM) 100 E WISCONSIN AVENUE Suite 3300 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2017 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ARNAUD MASSON and ROMAIN DEMOUSTIER Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final Rejection of claims 25^44.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Merge eClinical Inc. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 1—24 have been cancelled. App. Br. 22. Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 Invention The claims are directed to tracking a sequence of data model transactions over time in order to reproduce the transactions leading up to the current state of the data model. Spec. 9:4—11, 19-29. Exemplary Claim Claim 37, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter with disputed limitations emphasized: 37. A computer-implemented method of managing healthcare data relating to a clinical trial, the method comprising: storing, in a first storage component, a data model having a plurality of elements and associated values; receiving, by a controller module, a transaction; generating a revised data model by implementing the received transaction and storing the revised data model in the first storage component; storing the transaction to a sequence of transactions in a second storage component; receiving from a user a selection of at least one of the plurality of elements and a requested historical point in time; identifying from the at least one sequence of transactions a set of transactions associated with only the selected at least one element and implemented between an empty state of the data model containing no elements and the requested historical point in time; applying the identified set of transactions to an empty data model containing no elements to construct a reduced data model including only data relevant to the selected at least one element; and providing the reduced data model to the user. 2 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 Applied Prior Art The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Aegerter Martin Pofelski Watanabe Verma Huras Chandrasekaran Boyd US 2002/0069192 US 2002/0143764 US 2004/0139127 US 2004/0205309 US 7,036,044 B1 US 7,099,897 B2 US 2007/0214191 US 7,761,426 B2 A1 June 6, 2002 A1 Oct. 3, 2002 A1 July 15,2004 A1 Oct. 14, 2004 Apr. 25, 2006 Aug. 29, 2006 A1 Sept. 13, 2007 July 20, 2010 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 25—27, 29, 34—37, and 41—43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huras, Chandrasekaran, and Pofelski. Non-Final Act. 2—13. Claims 28 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huras, Chandrasekaran, Pofelski, and Verma. Id. at 13- lb. Claims 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huras, Chandrasekaran, Pofelski, and Watanabe. Id. at 16-18. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huras, Chandrasekaran, Pofelski, and Aegerter. Id. at 18— 19. Claims 38 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huras, Chandrasekaran, Pofelski, and Martin. Id. at 19- 21. 3 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huras, Verma, Boyd, and Pofelski. Id. at 21—24. ANALYSIS Independent Claims 37 and 41 “reduced data model ” Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Chandrasekaran teaches “providing the reduced data model to the user,” as recited in claim 37 and similarly recited in claim 41. App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 2—6. Specifically, Appellants argue Chandrasekaran’s temporal query results “do not represent the state of any database or data model at one particular point in time” and instead “represent data stored in the database at different points in time between the start event and the end event.” Reply Br. see App. Br. 9-10. Appellants further argue Chandrasekaran “teaches away from providing a database at a historical point in time to a user.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 6. We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Non-Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 4), and we agree, Chandrasekaran teaches a “method for responding to a temporal query” of a database (Chandrasekaran 130). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, the temporal query seeks content matching a query during user-specified dates (Ans. 4; Non-Final Act. 4—5), e.g., “all the purchase orders approved by John Doe during the time that he was a salesman” (Chandrasekaran H 30, 32—34). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Chandrasekaran responds to a temporal query by providing a “materialized view . . . that is populated with answers to the query . . . and a 4 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 staging area [that] is created to store results.” Ans. 5 (citing Chandrasekaran 11 62, 66). Appellants’ argument that “the results of [Chandrasekaran’s] temporal search are not a reconstructed state of a data model at one particular, user- selected point in time” (Reply Br. 4; App. Br. 9) are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not preclude results spanning a start and end time; instead, the claims identify a set of transactions and applies that set of transactions to create a reduced data model up to a historical point in time. That is, the reduced data model includes multiple transactions leading up to a point in time. Indeed, Appellants’ Specification supports that interpretation, providing “the historical progression” of a data model by “reconstructing the history . . . step by step” to “replay[] all the transactions up to that point” in time. Spec. 4:7—17, 10:36—29. Here, Chandrasekaran’s temporal query seeks responsive information up to a point in time, e.g., “all the purchase orders approved by John Doe during the time that he was a salesman.” Chandrasekaran || 31—32. We agree with the Examiner that those query results provided in Chandrasekaran’s materialized view “contain[ ] the answer to the temporal query, and only the answer to the temporal query.” Ans. 5 (citing Chandrasekaran || 62, 66). Chandrasekaran’s temporal query result, which provides information responsive to a query up to an end time, is a reduced data model because the claimed reduced data model provides certain database information leading up to a point in time, i.e., a set of transactions. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Chandrasekaran teaches “providing the reduced data model to the user,” within the meaning of claims 37 and 41. 5 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 Improper Combination Appellants argue the Examiner improperly combined Huras, Chandrasekaran, andPofelski. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 6—7. Specifically, Appellants argue the combination would “merely teach the temporal query system disclosed in Chandrasekaran with a completely separate database back-up system as disclosed in Huras or Pofelski.” App. Br. 10. Further, Appellants argue “the systems disclosed in Huras and Pofelski could not be used to construct the database at the user-specified beginning event.” App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 6. Further, Appellants argue “requiring that the systems disclosed in Huras or Pofelski log all database transactions from an empty state of the database would be completely contrary to the teachings of Huras and Pofelski.” App. Br. 11; see Reply Br. 7. We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds Huras teaches a database in which “[transactions to modify database objects of the tablespaces in a database are received and stored in log files,” i.e., Huras tracks database changes using log files. Non-Final Act. 3^4 (citing Huras 7:52—8:20). As discussed supra, the Examiner further finds Chandrasekaran teaches a database temporal query, i.e., a query for past database information. Non- Final Act. 4—6 (citing Chandrasekaran || 30, 44, 46, and 48). The Examiner combines Huras and Chandrasekaran so that a user can “control of which elements of the database should be constructed” which “giv[es] a user greater options when restoring the data to a particular point” and “result[s] in greater efficiency, [because] not all of the database will need to be reconstructed.” Non-Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 6, 12. Appellants’ argument that the combination “would merely teach the temporal query system disclosed in Chandrasekaran with a completely 6 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 separate database back-up system” (App. Br. 10) does not address the Examiner’s stated combination which improves Huras’ database system by applying Chandrasekaran to “control [] which elements of [the] database should be constructed” (Non-Final Act. 5). Further, Appellants’ argument that “the systems disclosed in Huras and Pofelski could not be used to construct the database at the user-specified beginning event” because “Huras and Pofelski only teach retaining log files from the most recent backup” (App. Br. 11 (citing Huras 12:39-44; Pofelski 130)) is not persuasive because Huras does not teach only retaining log files form the most recent backup. The portions of Huras cited by Appellants teach “recovery of the database objects 210 in the database system 200 uses the process of restoring the tablespace backup 104 and the process of rolling forward through all correlated log files 303 that contain the changes that took place after the backup 104 was recorded” (Huras 12:39-44), i.e., Huras teaches processing correlated log files after a backup, but does not teach that log files before a backup are not retained. Huras 12:39-44. Furthermore, the Examiner does not rely on Pofelski’s database; rather, the Examiner relies on Pofelski to teach empty data models (Non- Final Act. 6), and Appellants’ arguments directed to Pofelski’s database do not address the Examiner’s reliance on Huras’ database. Moreover, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to “restor[e] the data to a particular point” (Ans. 9), and Appellants have not presented persuasive argument or evidence that it would not have been obvious to do so. 7 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 Appellants’ argument that the combination “eliminate[s] the efficiency obtained” because the combination requires “processing large amounts of log files” (App. Br. 11; see Reply Br. 7) is not persuasive because the Examiner’s stated combination does not require processing large amounts of log files. Huras’ efficiency is achieved by “processing only those log files required.” Huras Abstract. The Examiner’s application of Chandrasekaran similarly selects “which elements of the database should be constructed” such that “not all of the database will need to be reconstructed” in the Examiner’s combination, “resulting] in greater efficiency.” Non- Final Act. 5—6. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly combined Huras, Chandrasekaran, and Pofelski. Independent Claim 40 and Dependent Claim 43 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Huras teaches “storing the transaction and information regarding an order in which the transaction was implemented to each of a plurality of sequences of transactions in at least one second storage component,” as recited in claim 40 and similarly recited in claim 43. App. Br. 12—13, 20—21; Reply Br. 7— 10. Specifically, Appellants argue Huras stores transactions in log files, but “the log files do not include duplicate copies of the same transaction,” as required by the claim. App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 7—8. We are persuaded. The Examiner finds Huras teaches that “a transaction may be stored across multiple log files.” Ans. 11—12 (citing Huras 7:48—8:20, Fig. 3). Although the Examiner asserts “that nothing in the claim requires duplicating a transaction” {id. at 10-11), the claim recites 8 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 “storing the transaction ... to each of a plurality of sequences of transactions.” That is, the claim requires the transaction be duplicated because the transaction itself is stored to each of the plurality of sequences. Indeed, the Specification supports this requirement, teaching that transactions are “add[ed] [] to the appropriate series” and “[sjeveral instances 604, 606, 608 of a particular series may be maintained for backup purposes.” Spec. 12:13—22. Although Huras teaches that the portions of a transaction making up a transaction can span multiple log files (Huras 8:9— 10 (“actions performed by transaction #1 are recorded in the log records”), Fig. 3), the actual transaction itself is not stored in each of the multiple log files, as required by the claim. Accordingly, based on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claim 40 and dependent claim 43. Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 40 and 43 on this issue, we do not reach the merits of Appellants’ remaining arguments regarding those claims. See App. Br. 13— 15, 20-21; see also Reply Br. 10-11. Dependent Claims 25 and 42 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Huras teaches “storing the transaction is performed in parallel with generating the revised data model,” as recited in claim 25 and similarly recited in claim 42. App. Br. 16. Specifically, Appellants argue Huras’ storage of transactions in log files does not occur “in parallel with making the changes to the database objects as dictated by [that] transition.” Id. We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, “Figure 3 and 7:62—8:20 of [Huras] show that as a transaction begins and ends, the 9 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 sequences of actions performed by the transaction are stored in the log file” and are “performed concurrently.” Ans. 17. Indeed, Figure 3 of Huras shows a time line 302, corresponding to log files 303 recording transactions, and time lines 304, 306, and 308, corresponding to transactions #1, #2, and #3; the actions performed by the transactions #1, #2, and #3 are performed concurrently as the logging of the actions performed in log files 303. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Huras teaches “storing the transaction is performed in parallel with generating the revised data model,” within the meaning of claims 25 and 42. Dependent Claims 28 and 44 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Verma teaches determining whether the transaction is successfully stored to the first sequence of transactions and the second sequence of transactions; and when the transaction is not successfully stored to one of the first sequence of transactions and the second sequence of transactions, identifying the one of the first sequence of transactions and the second sequence of transactions as invalid, as recited in claim 28 and similarly recited in claim 44. App. Br. 17. Specifically, Appellants argue Verma “identifies] whether two different data items have been stored” rather than “identifying] whether the same data item has been stored to two different storage locations.” Id. Appellants further argue Verma “identifies] invalid ‘undo data’ associated with a single log entry,” as opposed to “identifying an entire log (containing a sequence of log entries) as invalid.” Id. We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Huras teaches storing a transaction across a first and second sequence of 10 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 transactions. Ans. 18 (citing Huras 7:52—8:20, Fig. 3). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Verma teaches “a cycle count is stored in a redo log entry,” and the cycle count is used to verify the log entry. Id. (citing Verma 3:3—16, 16:48—59). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that the “log entry is a sequence of transactions.” Id. The Examiner applies “the redo log cycle number verification check of [Verma]” with Huras’ sequence of transactions “to determine whether a ‘sequence of transactions’ in a whole log has been successfully stored.” Id. at 19. Appellants’ argument that Verma does not store a transaction to different storage locations (App. Br. 17) does not address the Examiner’s finding that Huras stores a transaction in different storage locations (Ans. 18). Further, Appellants’ argument that Verma does not identify “an entire log” as invalid (App. Br. 17) is not persuasive because Verma’s identification of an error in a log sequence identifies the log sequence as invalid (Verma 3:3—16, 16:48—59). Moreover, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s combination, which applies Verma’s verification to verify Huras’ sequence of transactions. Ans. 19. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Huras and Verma teaches determining whether the transaction is successfully stored to the first sequence of transactions and the second sequence of transactions; and when the transaction is not successfully stored to one of the first sequence of transactions and the second sequence of transactions, identifying the one of the first sequence of transactions and the second sequence of transactions as invalid, within the meaning of claims 28 and 44. 11 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 Dependent Claim 33 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Aegerter teaches “storing an extensible markup language (‘XML’) file to the sequence of transactions, wherein the XML file includes information representing the transaction and a tag representing a sequence number of the transaction,” as recited in claim 33. App. Br. 17—18. Specifically, Appellants argue Aegerter does not teach an XML file that includes a tag representing a sequence number of the transaction. Id. at 18. We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Huras teaches “identifying] a sequence number of the transactions” because “tracking details of a transaction are stored in log records” and “log records are numbered.” Ans. 19—20 (citing Huras 7:62—8:20, Lig. 3). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Aegerter teaches “a transaction log with all changes encoded in XML” and “[i]t is well known in the art that encoded elements in an XML format are stored using ‘tags.’” Id. (citing Argerter 1208). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to “stor[e] information stored with the transaction log,” i.e., log record numbers, “as ‘tags’ in the XML format.” Id. at 20. Appellants’ arguments against Aegerter individually (App. Br. 17—18) are not persuasive because the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combination of Huras and Aegerter. In particular, Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s combination, applying Aegerter’s teaching of XML tags to Huras’ log record numbers, resulting in a system which tags Huras’ log record numbers using XML tags. Ans. 19—20. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Huras 12 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 and Aegerter teaches “storing an extensible markup language (‘XML’) file to the sequence of transactions, wherein the XML file includes information representing the transaction and a tag representing a sequence number of the transaction,” within the meaning of claim 33. Dependent Claim 34 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Huras teaches “storing an ordered list including a unique identifier associated with the transaction,” as recited in claim 34. App. Br. 18—19. Specifically, Appellants argue “the numbers referenced for the transactions (e.g., #1, #2, etc.) are merely used to illustrate different transactions are processed,” but are not used to “stor[e] a unique identifier for each different transaction.” Id. at 18. We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Huras’ log files store unique tablespace IDs associated with transactions. Non-Final Act. 8 (citing Huras 7:52—8:20); Ans. 21. Indeed, Huras teaches “log files 303 that collect tracking information (that is, information about changes made to various tablespaces 1, 2, 3, 4 by various transactions 305).” Huras 7:62—8:7; see Huras 8:44—63, Fig. 4. Appellants’ arguments, directed to transaction reference numbers (App. Br. 18), do not address the Examiner’s finding that Huras stores unique tablespace IDs associated with transactions which teaches the disputed limitation (Ans. 21, Non-Final Act. 8). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Huras teaches “storing an ordered list including a unique identifier associated with the transaction,” within the meaning of claim 34. 13 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 Dependent Claim 39 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Martin teaches “storing the transaction to the sequence of transactions includes storing at least one ancestor node associated with a child node modified when the transaction is implemented,” as recited in claim 39. App. Br. 19—20. Specifically, Appellants argue Martin “merely disclose[s] creating different versions of a database (e.g., a catalog file or database and a summer 2011 catalog file), which allow a user to access previous versions of a database,” but does not “mention whatsoever [the] storing [of] transactions or logs or including in such transactions or log ancestor nodes when a transaction modifies a child node of the ancestor node.” Id. at 19. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Huras teaches “storing] transaction logs” and “storing] information associated with the transactions” in databases. Ans. 22 (citing Huras 7:62—8:20, Fig. 3). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Martin teaches “database element[s] wi[ll] be categorized as either an ‘ancestor node’ or a ‘child node,’” e.g., “‘Winter Catalog 2001 ’ is an ancestor of ‘Winter Catalog 2002.’” Id. at 22— 23 (citing Martin || 61—62, Fig. 8). The Examiner finds the combination of Huras and Martin stores ancestor and child node transactions. Id. Appellants’ arguments against Martin individually (App. Br. 19) are not persuasive because the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combination of Huras and Martin. In particular, Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s combination of Huras, teaching storing transactions that modify database data, and Martin, teaching child node and ancestor node database data types, which results in a system that stores transactions modifying child 14 Appeal 2016-002383 Application 13/081,062 nodes of ancestor nodes. Ans. 23. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Huras and Martin teaches “storing the transaction to the sequence of transactions includes storing at least one ancestor node associated with a child node modified when the transaction is implemented,” within the meaning of claim 39. Remaining Claims 26—32 and 35, 36, and 38 Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 26—32 and 35, 36, and 38 which depend directly or indirectly from claims 37 or 31. See App. Br. 8—21. For the reasons set forth above, therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 26-32 and 35, 36, and 38. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 25— 39,41,42, and 44. We REVERSE the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 40 and 43. 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-IN-PART 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation