Ex Parte Peng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

13034111 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/034, 111 02/24/2011
105727 7590 02/26/2016
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (CA, Inc,)
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
Peter Peng
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.
072962-0385841 1157
EXAMINER
GLASSER, DARA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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):
Docket_IP@pillsbury law. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER PENG, MIN YAN, and ZHENGHUA XU
Appeal2014-002394
Application 13/034, 111
Technology Center 2100
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
Opinion dissenting filed by KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse.
1 Claims 6 and 15 were cancelled. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002394
Application 13/034,111
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to server application services. See
generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system configured to backup a server farm having two or more
servers configured to coordinate to serve a server application, the
system comprising:
a single standby server device configured to backup the server
farm such that the server application is provided with high
availability, the standby server device including electronic storage and
a processor configured to execute computer modules, the computer
modules comprising:
a server application module configured to serve the server
application;
a monitor module configured to determine whether a
changeover of the server farm should be initiated;
an information transfer module configured to transfer
information stored by the servers of the server farm to the
electronic storage of the standby server device in response to
determination by the monitor module that a changeover should be
initiated, such information including a configuration database for
the seP1er farm and a central administration \~1ebsite associated
with the server farm;
a server replacement module configured to replace the servers
of the server farm with the standby server device in information
transferred from the servers of the server farm to the electronic
storage of the standby server device; and
a changeover coordination module configured to initiate startup,
on the server application module executed on the standby server
device, of the services previously provided by the server farm.
Glenn
Nagata
References and Rejections
US 5,852,724 Dec. 22, 1998
US 2007 /0220323 Al Sep. 20, 2007
2
Appeal2014-002394
Application 13/034,111
Microsoft, NPL entitled "Microsoft SharePoint Products and
Technologies Server Farm Architecture," dated 2007 ("Microsoft
Publication")
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagata and Microsoft Publication. See
Non-Final Rej. 3-14.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nagata, Microsoft Publication, and Glenn. See Non-Final
Rej. 14--16.
ANALYSIS
The present invention relates to using a single standby server device
to back up a server farm having two or more servers. See claim 1. In
contrast, Nagata relates to using a standby server to backup a single active
server at any given time. See, e.g., Nagata Abstract ("Provided is a method
of managing an active server in a computer system. . . . the standby server
receives, from one of the active servers, a request for registration of the
active server, the request including information about the active server and
information about a recovery program that is executed when a failure occurs
in the active server.") (emphases added); Nagata i-f 6 ("proposed is the N:M
standby cluster system in which one standby server recovers an unresolved
transaction that was in progress when a failure occurred in one of the active
servers and thus implements an application that was being provided by this
active server.") (emphasis added). Because the invention of the present
3
Appeal2014-002394
Application 13/034,111
application differs significantly from Nagata, the Examiner's mapping is
problematic, as detailed below.
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding Nagata teaches "an information transfer module configured to
transfer information stored by the servers of the server farm to the electronic
storage of the standby server device in response to determination by the
monitor module that a changeover should be initiated, such information
including a configuration database for the server farm[,]" as recited in
independent claim 1 (emphases added). 2
The Examiner cites Nagata's paragraph 84 for the italicized claim
limitation. See Final Rej. 4; Ans. 8.
Appellants argue:
mere disclosure of transfer of certain pieces of information does
not disclose or teach "a configuration database" or its transfer.
Further, the Examiner has not identified in the cited portions of
Nagata disclosure or teaching of a server farm (active server
100 is merely a single server) and not identified a configuration
database for the server farm or its transfer.
Reply Br. 7 (emphases added); see also App. Br. 8.
In response, the Examiner finds:
Nagata recites that "the configuration information notification
program 107 sends the active server name 201, the application
server name 202, the active server IP address 203, the resource
connection information 204 and the shared disk device
information 205 as data to be recorded in the active server
configuration management table 171 to the active server
2 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
4
Appeal2014-002394
Application 13/034,111
configuration management program 161" (paragraph [0084 ],
emphasis added). Accordingly, Nagata explicitly refers to the
active server name 201, the application server name 202, the
active server IP address 203, the resource connection
information 204, and the shared disk device information 205 as
"configuration information."
Ans. 8 (emphases added); see also Final Rej. 4.
Appellants do not define the term "database" in the claims or the
Specification. Nevertheless, we understand "database" to be a term of art
readily intelligible to an artisan of ordinary skill. We additionally observe
that a relevant technical dictionary defines "database" as "[a] file composed
of records, each containing fields together with a set of operations for
searching, sorting, recombining, and other functions." Microsoft Press
Computer Dictionary 129 (3rd ed. 1997).
The Examiner's response does not specifically address Appellants'
argument about the configuration database, nor does it specifically point out
what the Examiner finds as the claimed "configuration database for the
server farm" in the reference. In fact, the Examiner acknowledges Nagata
sends the configuration information as data-not a configuration database.
See Ans. 8. Further, we have reviewed Nagata's paragraph 84, which does
not explicitly discuss a "database." Absent further explanation from the
Examiner, we do not see how Nagata's paragraph 84 teaches "an
information transfer module configured to transfer information stored by the
servers of the server farm to the electronic storage of the standby server
device in response to determination by the monitor module that a
changeover should be initiated, such information including a configuration
database for the server farm[,]," as required by the claim (emphasis added).
5
Appeal2014-002394
Application 13/034,111
Further, modifying Nagata's data into the claimed "database" requires
at least further reasoning from the Examiner-absent from this record-
especially since such modification is not apparent to one skilled in the art.
See KSR v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ("[T]here must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.") (citations omitted).
The Examiner maps the claimed "configuration information" to "the
active server name 201, the application server name 202, the active server IP
address 203, the resource connection information 204 and the shared disk
device information 205," which are associated with a single server. See
Ans. 8; Nagata Fig. 1. And such "configuration information" is (i) sent as
data, and (ii) to be recorded in the . .. table 171. See Nagata i-f 84.
Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see why one
skilled in the art would (i) modify 5 pieces of information for a single
server-not multiple servers-into the claimed database, which has "a set of
operations for searching, sorting, recombining, and other functions"
(Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 129 (3rd ed. 1997)); or (ii) modify
such data into the claimed database, resulting in recording a database into
Nagata's table.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support
the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims 2-5 and 7-9 for
similar reasons.
For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 10, and corresponding dependent claims 11-14 and 16-
18.
6
Appeal2014-002394
Application 13/034,111
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7
Appeal2014-002394
Application 13/034,111
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the Majority's reversal of the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18. The Majority reverses the
rejection of these claims because the Majority does not believe that Nagata
teaches or suggests "an information transfer module configured to transfer
information ... such information including a configuration database for the
server farm," as recited in the independent claims. Opinion 4. The Majority
focuses on, and agrees with, Appellants' argument that Nagata fails to
explicitly disclose a "database" because a database requires more than just
information. Opinion 5. The Majority acknowledges that Appellants have
not provided a specific definition for the term "database" and, therefore,
cites to a dictionary definition of the term to show the difference between
\vhat is claimed and \vhat Nagata teaches. Opinion 5. I disagree \vith
Appellants and the Majority that there is a difference.
Initially, I note that the Examiner's rejection is an obviousness
rejection, not an anticipation rejection. Non-final Act. 3---6. Therefore, the
question is not whether the references identically disclose the invention, but
rather whether the invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art in reviewing the references, as a whole. See 35 US. C. §
103(a).
I agree with the Examiner (Non-final Act. 3---6) that the disputed
limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when
reviewing the combination of Nagata and Microsoft Publication. In
particular, I agree with the Examiner (Id.) that Nagata teaches, or at the very
8
Appeal2014-002394
Application 13/034,111
least suggests, sending the configuration database, as required by the
independent claims. Ans. 8. Nagata teaches a system wherein configuration
information is sent from the active servers to the standby server's active
configuration management program where it is stored in a configuration
management table. Nagata, i-f 84. The information sent includes "active
server name 201, the application server name 202, the active server IP
address 203, the resource connection information 204 and the shared disk
device information 205." Id.; see also Ans. 8. The Examiner finds, and
Appellants do not dispute, 3 that this information is the "configuration
information." Ans. 8.
The Majority is correct that Appellants do not provide a specific
definition for the term "configuration database." Opinion 5. However, a
broad and reasonable interpretation of "sending a 'configuration database,'"
in light of Appellants' Specification,4 would include sending the information
contained in the configuration database. Thus, because Nagata teaches
3 Even if Appellants were to dispute that the information sent was not all of
the configuration information, I would still not find Appellants' argument
persuasive because Nagata's configuration information is used to back-up
the inoperative server(s). See Nagata, i-f 48. As such, the configuration
information provided to the standby server must necessarily include all of
the information necessary to back-up the active server(s).
4 "[T]he specification 'is always highly relevant to the claim construction
analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning
ofa disputed term."' Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415F.3d1303, 1315 (Fed.
Cir. 2005), quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Page 3, paragraph 8, of Appellants' Specification
(cited by Appellants in the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter in the
Appeal Brief on page 3), in essence, describes the "configuration database"
simply as information.
9
Appeal2014-002394
Application 13/034,111
sending the "configuration information" to the standby server, I do not see
how this is any different than sending the "configuration database."
For these reasons, I would affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-5, 7-14, and 16-18.
10