Ex parte ORAN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 1999

08068592 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 1999)

Application for patent filed May 27, 1993. According to1
appellant, this application is a continuation of Application
No. 07/471,855, filed January 29, 1990, now abandoned.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 34
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DAVID ORAN
____________
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,5921
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 6, 7, 39, 43, 44, and 46, which are all of
the claims pending in this application.
The appellant's invention relates to a method of
systematically updating information in a distributed network
data processing system. Claim 39 is illustrative of the
claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
39. A method of systematically updating information in a
distributed network data processing system, said data network
having at least one client node, at least one server node
operating in conjunction with said client node, a plurality of
directories, at least one clearinghouse replica of each of
said directories, each of said clearinghouse replicas residing
on said server node, and a synchronization attribute for each
directory, said synchronization attribute having a
synchronization attribute timestamp, said method comprising
the steps of:
assigning a replica attribute having a replica attribute
timestamp and a replica attribute value to each clearinghouse
replica of each of said directories;
assigning a first directory attribute having a first
directory attribute timestamp and a first directory attribute
value indicative of an existing version of said directory to
each of said directories;
assigning a second directory attribute having a second
directory attribute timestamp and a second directory attribute
value being indicative of an upgraded version of said
directory to each of said directories;
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
3
maintaining each said clearinghouse replica of each of
said directories on said data processing system;
systematically comparing each said replica attribute
value for each said clearinghouse replica with said second
directory attribute value for each of said directories;
systematically comparing each said first directory
attribute timestamp for each of said directories and said
second directory attribute timestamp for each of said
directories to said synchronization attribute timestamp;
systematically replacing each said clearinghouse replica
of each of said directories with said upgraded version of said
directory when said comparison of said replica attribute value
and said second directory attribute value indicates that said
second directory attribute value is a more recent version of
said directory than said clearinghouse replica and said
comparison of said first directory attribute timestamp and
said second directory attribute timestamp to said
synchronization attribute timestamp indicates that said
synchronization attribute timestamp is more recent than said
first directory attribute timestamp and said second directory
attribute timestamp;
synchronizing each said clearinghouse replica on said
data processing system by periodically propagating each said
clearinghouse replica throughout said data processing system;
and
modifying said synchronization attribute timestamp for
each of said directories to represent a time at which said
periodic propagation of said clearinghouse replica last
occurred.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Lowry et al. (Lowry) 4,864,497 Sep. 05, 1989
Mathur 5,008,814 Apr. 16, 1991
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
4
(filed Aug. 15, 1988)
Schwartz et al. (Schwartz) 5,047,918 Sep. 10, 1991
(filed Dec. 19, 1988)
Miller 5,117,351 May 26, 1992
(filed Oct. 21, 1988)
Driscoll et al. (Driscoll) 5,142,681 Aug. 25, 1992
(effective filing date Jul. 7, 1986)
Claims 6, 7, 39, 43, 44, and 46 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of
Lowry and Mathur.
Claims 6, 7, 39, 43, 44, and 46 also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Driscoll in view of
Lowry and Mathur.
Claims 6, 7, 39, 43, 44, and 46 further stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in
view of Lowry and Mathur.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 31,
mailed July 20, 1995) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 33, mailed October 20, 1995) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellant's Brief (Paper No. 30, filed May 1, 1995) and Reply
Brief (Paper No. 32, filed August 16, 1995) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
5
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant states on
page 11 of the Brief that all of the claims stand or fall
together with respect to each of the three rejections. We
agree with appellant's grouping of the claims. Accordingly,
we will consider claim 39 as representative and limit our
discussion thereto. Claims 6, 7, 43, 44, and 46 will stand or
fall with claim 39.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of all of
the claims.
In the rejections (Paper No. 21, pages 2-4), the examiner
essentially asserts that for each rejection, since the
references collectively teach updating of objects and using
both a timestamp and a version number to identify an object,
the method of claim 39 would have been obvious. The examiner,
however, fails to show how each method step is disclosed in or
would have been obvious in view of the references.
For the first rejection of the claims, the examiner
relies on Miller, Lowry, and Mathur. Miller discloses (column
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
6
3, lines 18-25 and 39-50) assigning to each node of a
distributed computer network, an identifier which includes a
version number and a time component. If two nodes obtain
identifiers at the same time, the time component for one is
adjusted so that each identifier is unique (see column 5,
lines 18-40). Miller teaches (column 3, lines 65-68) that
when software is updated, the version number is also updated.
Miller does not describe a particular method for updating and
therefore does not disclose any of the steps recited in claim
39, such as "systematically comparing each said replica
attribute value for each said clearinghouse replica with said
second directory attribute value for each of said directories"
and "systematically comparing each said first directory
attribute timestamp for each of said directories and said
second directory attribute timestamp for each of said
directories to said synchronization attribute timestamp."
Mathur also involves a network of computers. Mathur
states (column 3, lines 48-53) that "[t]he network topological
information is periodically maintained and updated to reflect
changes in the configuration of the network" and that "the
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
7
system software may be changed periodically to add new
functions or enhancements." Mathur further discloses that:
When the system software is changed, it becomes
desirable to perform a process . . . to update the
non-volatile storage devices 103 in a predetermined
subset of nodes in the network so that the new
system software may be used to operate the CPU's 101
of the subset of nodes.
The process by which Mathur does the update involves loading
the software into a source node and then distributing the new
software to the other nodes. Mathur discloses neither the
systematic comparisons of version numbers nor timestamps and
systematic comparisons thereof.
Lowry relates to common databases for plural application
programs. Lowry discloses tracking the various versions of
data files as updates are made. The examiner contends
(Answer, page 6) that the "synchronization timestamp of the
claim is identical to the checkpoint of Lowry." The examiner
further explains (Supplemental Answer, page 3) that:
[I]n Lowry, the snapshot file contains multiple
versions of data and at checkpoint, the master data
file must be synchronized to a specific version. . .
. the contents of the master data file are replaced
with a checkpoint version from the snapshot file . .
. . In other words, a checkpoint version is a
version at a specific point in time. Therefore,
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
8
Lowry teaches a timestamp associated with the
versions.
The examiner continues (Supplemental Answer, page 3),
A comparison of version numbers to locate a specific
version is performed on column 33[,] lines 10-16.
Although Lowry by itself teaches a timestamp
associated with each version, when Lowry is combined
for example with Miller, different versions of the
macropages would be indicated with a version number
and a timestamp, and one would locate the highest
version having a specific timestamp which is less
than the checkpoint timestamp.
As appellant (Reply Brief, page 3) explains, the
"checkpoint disclosed in Lowry is a system for storing a
version of a data structure with the purpose of restoring the
data structure with the stored version should the data
structure subsequently become corrupted. The checkpoint is
therefore a type of error recovery." The checkpoint version
replaces the master data structure when part or all of the
data structure is lost or destroyed. Contrary to the
examiner's assertion, Lowry does not disclose timestamps. The
checkpoint occurs when needed and does not have a timestamp
associated therewith. Lowry does not deal with propagating an
update through a distributed network. Lowry does not disclose
the method steps recited in claim 39 such as the systematic
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
9
comparisons between the version numbers and the timestamps.
Even if one were to interpret Lowry as the examiner has done
and equate Lowry's checkpoint with appellant's synchronization
timestamp, there is no suggestion in Lowry to compare the
version numbers and the timestamps in a distributed network to
systematically update the system. Lowry merely teaches
replacing the master data structure when it is lost or
damaged. Accordingly, Lowry does not cure the defects of
Miller and Mathur.
In responding to appellant's arguments (Answer, page 5),
the examiner states that Miller shows "associating timestamp
and version number attributes with data objects, using these
attributes to uniquely identify the objects and comparing
these attributes to determine a version at a specific time."
However,
comparison in Miller is to determine if a particular
identifier has been used before, so as not to assign the same
identifier twice, not to determine whether or not an update
should be performed on a specific node in a distributed
network. Therefore, we cannot affirm the rejection of claim
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
10
39 and all claims which stand or fall therewith (claims 6, 7,
43, 44, and 46) over Miller, Lowry, and Mathur.
For the second rejection, the examiner applies Driscoll
in place of Miller. The examiner asserts that Driscoll
teaches using a version number and a timestamp. Driscoll does
not involve updating a network. Driscoll relates to
translating computer programs from one language to another.
At the end of a translation, a comment with a timestamp and
identification of the particular version is added. As pointed
out by appellant (Brief, page 21), a comment line in a program
is merely to let the person using the program know what
version he is using. The comment line is not used for
determining whether or not an update should be performed on a
specific node in a distributed network. As Driscoll discloses
even less than Miller, and Lowry and Mathur are used the same
as when combined with Miller, clearly the combination of
Driscoll, Lowry, and Mathur, lacks disclosure of the claimed
method steps even more than the first combination of
references. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claim 39 and all claims which stand or fall therewith (claims
6, 7, 43, 44, and 46) over Driscoll, Lowry, and Mathur.
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
11
For the third rejection, the examiner substitutes
Schwartz for Miller or Driscoll. Schwartz discloses a file
management system, with various attributes assigned to each
data file or node. Schwartz teaches (column 6, lines 20-25)
that "the machine identifies a node according to the time (the
'version time') the node was created. When the machine
modifies a node in response to user input, the version time
identifying the node is updated to the current time."
Further, "to access the contents of an existing node, the user
may transmit a request to machine 14 to access ('check out')
the node, identifying the node by its NodeIndex and Time
parameters" (see column 10, lines 29-33). Thus, Schwartz
discloses using the version number and version time as
identifiers. Schwartz also states that "[t]he use of the Time
parameter permits machine 14 to identify and resolve conflicts
arising when different users attempt to modify the contents of
the same node" (column 10, lines 39-42). "The log program 70
also synchronizes multi-user access to a graph" (column 17,
lines 31-32).
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
12
In response to appellant's argument that Schwartz does
not disclose or suggest "any means for generating or modifying
timestamps to synchronize the propagation of directory
replicas throughout multiple nodes in a distributed system"
(Brief, page 24), the examiner asserts (Answer, page 8) that
"Schwartz shows the version number and timestamp attributes
being compared and used for synchronization." The examiner,
however, fails to explain how synchronizing multi-user access
to a particular program renders obvious the steps of
synchronizing an update in a distributed network. The mere
use of the word "synchronization" does not render the
processes the same. The comparisons in the claims differ from
the comparisons done by Schwartz. For example, Schwartz does
not disclose steps recited in claim 39 such as "systematically
comparing each said replica attribute value for each said
clearinghouse replica with said second directory attribute
value for each of said directories" and "systematically
comparing each said first directory attribute timestamp for
each of said directories and said second directory attribute
timestamp for each of said directories to said synchronization
attribute timestamp." Since Lowry and Mathur fail to provide
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
13
teachings for the claimed steps lacking in Schwartz (see above
discussion of Lowry and Mathur), we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 39 and all claims which stand or fall
therewith (claims 6, 7, 43, 44, and 46) over Schwartz, Lowry,
and Mathur.
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
14
CONCLUSION
In summary, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
6, 7, 39, 43, 44, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over each of
Miller, Driscoll, and Schwartz, each in combination with Lowry
and Mathur, is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
APG:clm
Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
15
Digital Equipment Corporation
Patent Law Group
111 Powdermill Road - MS02-3/G3
Maynard, MA 01754-1499