Ex Parte Ramidi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2016

11768128 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
111768, 128
45728
IBM_SVL
7590
FILING DATE
0612512007
02/03/2016
c/o Sawyer Law Group, P.C.
P.O. Box 51418
Palo Alto, CA 94303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
R. Madhusudhan RAMIDI
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.
IN920060090US l/4206P 2485
EXAMINER
UDDIN, MDI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2016 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):
patent@sawyerlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte R. MADHUSUDHAN RAMIDI
Appeal2014-002956
Application 11/768, 128
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejections of claims 1 and 4, which are all the claims
pending in the present patent application. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application relates to improving the pe 1 formance
of a database by optimizing operations thereon. Spec. i-f 1.
1 Appellant represents International Business Machines Corporation is the
real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-002956
Application 11/768,128
Claim 1 is illustrative (lettering and emphases added):
1. A computer-implemented method for optimizing
the number of xa_open and xa_close calls in a distributed
database system, wherein the computer performs the
following functions comprising:
providing a xa_open call from an application to
create a new connection only if it is determined that an
existing connection within a connection pool does not
have the same xa_criteria and xa_info, wherein a dummy
call is created that returns OK if it is determined that an
existing connection within the connection pool has the
same xa_criteria and xa_info and can already be utilized
by the application, wherein the xa_info comprises
instance specific information including database server
name, database name, and flags; and
in response to receiving an xa_close call from the
application, delaying the xa_close call until a time out of
the existing or new connection, [L 1] wherein the only
event which triggers performing of the xa_close call is
the time out of the existing or new connection, upon
which a resource manager is closed;
wherein a two phase commit operation is
performed that ensures modifications between multiple
resources commit together or rollback together without
having to perform additional xa_open calls to the
distributed database system.
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Erickson (W ebSphere Connection Pooling, International
Business Machines Corporation 2001 ), Distributed Transaction Processing:
The XA Specification ("XA Specification"), Weedon (US 2003/0046298
Al; Mar. 6, 2003) and Hunt (US 2003/0023617 Al; Jan. 30, 2003).
2
Appeal2014-002956
Application 11/768,128
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1 and 4 as a group. Br. 11. As permitted by
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv), we select claim 1 as representative of the
independent claims at issue and address Appellant's arguments in the
context of this claim.
The Examiner finds Erickson teaches or suggests limitation L 1. Final
Act. 5---6.
Appellant contends, inter alia, Erickson recites two conditions under
which a connection will be closed, namely: (i) when the IDLE_TIMEOUT
time period is reached and removing the connection would not cause the
pool to shrink below its minimum value and (ii) when the connection is
marked as stale. Br. 7-8 (citing Erickson, 12, 32-33). Therefore, Appellant
contends, Erickson fails to teach or suggest limitation L 1 and further teaches
away from limitation LI. Br. 8.
In response to Appeiiant's argument, the Examiner finds:
Although Erickson does not explicitly said 'only', it seems that
the only event that really removes and closes a connection is the
IDLE_ TIMEOUT event as disclosed on page 12 .... At any
other times (such as when an application is done with a
connection), the xa_connection would be returned to the pool
and not is actually closed.
Ans. 2-3.
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument of Examiner error.
Appellant identifies in Erickson teachings of two specific, alternative
conditions under which a connection will be closed. Br. 7-8 (citing
Erickson, 12, 32-33). The Examiner's findings in response fail to address
the second condition, namely when the connection is marked as stale. To
3
Appeal2014-002956
Application 11/768,128
the extent the Examiner addresses the stale connection through the finding
"the xa_connection would be returned to the pool and not is actually closed,"
such finding is not supported by the record evidence. As Appellant correctly
identifies, Erickson teaches:
There is a case in which the application's calling close() can
result in the connection to the database being closed, bypassing
the return of the connection to the pool. This happens if one of
the connections in the pool has been determined to be stale.
Erickson, 32-33 (emphasis added). We agree with Appellant that, on the
record before us, the Examiner fails to make findings sufficient to identify a
teaching or suggestion of limitation L 1 in Erickson.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1
and4.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 4.
REVERSED
lv
4