11858937 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013)

Ex Parte Parees et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 2013

11858937 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013)

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. 11/858,937 09/21/2007 Benjamin Michael Parees RSW920070310US1 3650 58139 7590 12/30/2013 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. P.O. BOX 131851 DALLAS, TX 75313 EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2161 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BENJAMIN MICHAEL PAREES, DAVID MICHAEL EADS, DAVID MICHAEL ENYEART, LUIS EDUARDO GUILLEN-SANCHEZ, LATHA SIVAKUMAR, and DAN MCBRYDE WILLEY ____________ Appeal 2011-000553 Application 11/858,937 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000553 Application 11/858,937 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an 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 the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Representative Claim Claim 1. A method for ensuring that archival data deleted in a source table is already stored in a target table, the method comprising the steps of: locking one or more rows in a first table, wherein said first table stores one or more primary key values associated with one or more rows in said source table that have been one of modified and created by an external data source, wherein said first table further stores an indication of deleting one or more rows in said source table associated with one or more of said one or more primary key values; copying distinct values for said one or more primary keys from said first table; inserting said copied distinct values for said one or more primary keys into one or more rows of a second table; setting one or more flags in said second table associated with said one or more rows in said source table to be deleted according to said first table; and deleting said one or more rows in said source table indicated by said second table according to said setting of said one or more flags. Prior Art Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zoltan, Ching Chen, Ama, and Ponnekanti. Claims 2, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zoltan, Ching Chen, Ama, Ponnekanti, and Biswal. Appeal 2011-000553 Application 11/858,937 3 ANALYSIS Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 Appellants contend that the combination of Zoltan, Ching Chen, Ama, and Ponnekanti does not teach “inserting said copied distinct values for said one or more primary keys into one or more rows of a second table” as recited in claim 1. Br. 7-8. The Examiner finds that paragraph 23 of Ama teaches inserting distinct values into a row of a second table by combining duplicate entries. Ans. 12. Paragraph 23 of Ama teaches extracting, transforming, and loading data to migrate data from one database to another by combining the data with other data. We find no description of, nor has the Examiner persuasively explained how paragraph 23 of Ama teaches, combining duplicate entries. Because the Examiner bases the disputed finding on this false premise, we disagree with the conclusion that Ama teaches inserting distinct values into a row of a second table. Further, claim 1 does not recite combining duplicate entries. Claim 1 instead recites “inserting said copied distinct values for said one or more primary keys into one or more rows of a second table.” The Examiner has not persuasively explained how paragraph 23 of Ama teaches this limitation. Nor has the Examiner explained how Zoltan, Ching Chen, or Ponnekanti teaches “inserting said copied distinct values for said one or more primary keys into one or more rows of a second table.” We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 contain, or depend from a claim that contains, a limitation similar to that found in claim 1 for which the rejection fails. Appeal 2011-000553 Application 11/858,937 4 Section 103 rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16 The Examiner has not explained how Biswal teaches “inserting said copied distinct values for said one or more primary keys into one or more rows of a second table” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2, which depends from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 9 and 16 depend from a claim that contains a limitation similar to that found in claim 1 for which the rejection fails. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zoltan, Ching Chen, Ama, and Ponnekanti is reversed. The rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zoltan, Ching Chen, Ama, Ponnekanti, and Biswal is reversed. REVERSED kis