Ex Parte Peek

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13181396 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/181,396 07 /12/2011
91230 7590 09/02/2016
Baker Botts L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue. 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel Nota Peek
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.
079894.0336 4319
EXAMINER
WIDHALM DE RODRIG, ANGELA MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL NOTA PEEK
Appeal2015-005453
Application 13/181,396
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-005453
Application 13/181,396
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to issuing and acknowledging begin transaction
messages over a database connection between a database client and a
database server (Spec. i-fi-1 30-31 ). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising
instructions, the instructions operable when executed by a
processor to:
receive a begin transaction message from a database
client, wherein the begin transaction is the first in a series of
logically related messages sent to a database server;
transmit an acknowledgement of the begin transaction
message to the database client, prior to forwarding the begin
transaction message to the database server, the begin
transaction message establishing an active connection to the
database server;
forward the begin transaction message to the database
server; and
receive an acknowledgement of the begin transaction
message from the database server.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Pedone et al.
Hunt et al.
Cheng et al.
US 6,772,363 B2
US 6,801,919 B2
US 7,702,739 Bl
2
Aug.3,2004
Oct. 5, 2004
Apr. 20, 2010
Appeal2015-005453
Application 13/181,396
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hunt, Pedone, and Cheng.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Hunt, Pedone, and Cheng
discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1, including that Hunt
teaches the limitations "receive a begin transaction message from a database
client" and "transmit an acknowledgement of the begin transaction message,
prior to forwarding the begin transaction message to the database server"
(Final Act. 1 4). Appellant contends:
[T]he Examiner attempts to point to "the query statement"
message 970 as being the begin transaction message that is sent
by the database client to the database server and to
"confirmation" message 935 as being the acknowledgement of
the begin transaction message that is sent from the database
server to the database client prior to forwarding the begin
transaction message to the database server, however, this
argument is deficient on several points[.]
(Br. 6.) Specifically, Appellant argues Hunt labels message 925 as a begin
transaction message, not the message 970 the Examiner relies upon (Br. 6-
7). Further, Appellant argues, "[ e ]ven assuming, for the sake of argument,
that message 970 is a begin transaction message, message 935 is not sent by
the party that receives message 970 (HSTMT 530), nor is message 935 sent
to the party that initiated message 970 (application 900)" (Br. 7). We are
persuaded by Appellant's argument.
1 The Final Action dated December 23, 2013.
3
Appeal2015-005453
Application 13/181,396
Hunt teaches a message sequence for opening a database connection
between an application 900 and a database 3 50, beginning a transaction,
executing a query, and ending the transaction (Hunt, col. 7, 1. 29---col. 8, 1.
16; Fig. 9). Although Hunt discloses a "Begin Transaction" message 925,
the Examiner relies instead on Hunt's "Execute ()"message 970 for
disclosing the claimed "begin transaction message" that is received "from a
database client" (Ans. 3--4; Hunt, Fig. 9). The Examiner further relies on
Hunt's "Add ref. on HDB" confirmation message 935 for disclosing the
claimed "acknowledgement of the begin transaction message" (Ans. 4---6;
Hunt, Fig. 9). However, Hunt shows that message 935 is transmitted before
message 970 (Hunt, Fig. 9), and thus message 935 does not acknowledge
receipt of message 970, as required by the claim 1 language "transmit an
acknowledgement of the begin transaction message." That is, to be an
acknowledgment of a begin transaction message, the acknowledgement must
be transmitted after the begin transaction message is received. Accordingly,
we find the Examiner erred in finding Hunt teaches the claim 1 limitations
"receive a begin transaction message from a database client," and "transmit
an acknowledgement of the begin transaction message."
We further note that claim 1 not only requires receiving a begin
transaction message from a database client and transmitting an
acknowledgment of this begin transaction message, but also requires
"forward[ing] the begin transaction message to the database server," and
"receiv[ing] an acknowledgement of the begin transaction message from the
database server." In other words, claim 1 requires two different
acknowledgment messages: one acknowledgment message responsive to the
original begin transaction message from the database client; and one
4
Appeal2015-005453
Application 13/181,396
acknowledgment message from the database server responsive to the
forwarded begin transaction message.
The Examiner relies on Pedone for the claim 1 limitation "receive an
acknowledgement of the begin transaction message from the database
server" (Final Act. 5; Ans. 5---6). However, Pedone only discloses a single
acknowledgment of a "begin(t) request" sent to a "database server process"
from an "application server process" (Pedone, col. 10, 11. 31--41 ). Pedone
does not teach sending an acknowledgment of a forwarded begin transaction
message from a database server where a prior acknowledgment has already
been transmitted to a database client for the original begin transaction
message as required by claim 1. Even if we were to consider Hunt's
teaching of a "Begin Transaction" message 925 followed by a confirmation
message 935 to be an "acknowledgment of the begin transaction message"
(which the Examiner does not find (see Ans. 2--4)), Hunt too would teach
only a single acknowledgment to a begin transaction message. The
Examiner does not, however, in either the Final Action or the Examiner's
Answer, specifically explain how and why Hunt and Pedone would have
been combined to meet the claim 1 requirement of two different
acknowledgments. That is, the Examiner has not shown that it would have
been obvious, over Hunt in view of Pedone, to acknowledge not only a begin
transaction message sent by a database client, but also to acknowledge a
forwarded begin transaction message sent to a database server. 2
2 As the Examiner has not provided explicit reasoning supporting such a
conclusion, we do not comment on whether it would have been obvious,
considering the teachings of Hunt and Pedone in light of the principles set
forth in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), to provide a
sequence of acknowledgment messages for an original begin transaction
5
Appeal2015-005453
Application 13/181,396
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 15 which
recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-
20 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
message and a forwarded begin transaction message, where the first
acknowledgment message is transmitted prior to forwarding the begin
transaction message, as recited in claim 1.
6