Ex Parte Rank et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2018

14145465 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/145,465 12/31/2013
82515 7590 09/10/2018
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher Hugh Rank
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.
1933.2840001 1076
EXAMINER
CHOI, YUK TING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2018 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):
mlee@sternekessler.com
e-office@sternekessler.com
sahmed@sternekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER HUGH RANK and
VICTORIA ANNE STUART 1
Appeal2018-001096
Application 14/145,465
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-15, 17-20, and 23-25, all the
pending claims in the present Application. Claims 16, 21, and 22 are
canceled (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants name SAP SE as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2018-001096
Application 14/145,465
The present invention relates generally to routing data to be replicated
based on the content of the data (see Spec., Abstract).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for replicating data, comprising:
retrieving, by at least one processor, a row from a
database transaction log, wherein the row comprises row data
associated with a database table of a database for replication;
determining, by the at least one processor, which one of a
plurality of physical communication paths between the database
table and a replication server is to be used to route data rows for
replication based on a filtering condition, wherein each of the
plurality of physical communication paths corresponds to one
of a plurality of replication paths;
determining that the filtering condition includes a user-
defined condition, wherein the user-defined condition is stored
as a database object in the database, and wherein the user-
defined condition comprises a condition specified by a user of
the database that indicates to which replication path to transmit
an individual record of the database transaction log;
determining which replication path of the plurality of
replication paths over which to transmit the content of the row
to be replicated based on whether the content of the row
satisfies the filtering condition, wherein the filtering condition
corresponds to a named replication path for the replication of
the row;
selecting, by the at least one processor, the named
replication path bound to the filtering condition upon the
filtering condition, including the user-defined condition, being
satisfied, or a default replication path if the filtering condition is
not satisfied; and
transmitting, by the at least one processor, the row to a
replicate database through the selected replication path.
2
Appeal2018-001096
Application 14/145,465
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, 15, 17-19, 23, and 24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Singh (US 2005/0015436 Al,
Jan. 20, 2005) and Erofeev (US 2007/0185852 Al, Aug. 9, 2007);
R2. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Singh, Erofeev, and Carriere (US 2013/0067017
Al, Mar. 14, 2013); and
R3. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Singh, Erofeev, and Simonyi (US 2007/0101256 Al, May
3, 2007).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Singh and Erofeev
collectively teach or suggest determining which one of a plurality of
physical communication paths between the database table and a replication
server is to be used to route data rows for replication based on a filtering
condition, as set forth in claims 1, 8, and 15?
Appellants contend that "[ n Jo where does Singh teach or suggest using
a 'filter' to determine a replication path" (App. Br. 11) and Singh "merely
describes a next synchronization destination, but says nothing of any
communication path" (id.). Appellants further contend that "[t]he user
condition of Erofeev does not teach or suggest the 'user-define condition' of
3
Appeal2018-001096
Application 14/145,465
the claim language which indicates which replication path to transmit an
individual record of the database transaction log" (App. Br. 12) because
Erofeev is "silent as to how many communication paths exist between a data
agent replication agent and a replication agent" (id. at 13). In other words,
Appellants contend "that neither Singh nor Erofeev, alone or in combination
teach or suggest all the features of claim 1" (id.), i.e., determining which one
of a plurality of physical communication paths between the database table
and a replication server is to be used to route data rows for replication based
on a filtering condition (see claim 1 ).
Although we agree with the Examiner's statements that "a 'replication
path' is a communication path between a source location and a destination
location in a network and similarly" and "both of the cited references Singh
and Erofeev disclose a replication path" (Ans. 4), what is missing from the
cited art, particularly Erofeev, is a determination as to which replication
path, between the database table and the replication server, is to be used for
data rows to be replicated.
Here, the Examiner finds that because "the Singh reference is
selecting a next destination," Singh is also selecting "a next replication path"
(id. at 5). We agree with Appellants that even if "it is possible [that] only
one communication path exists[,] ... no selection can be made" (App. Br.
13) and "[t]he Examiner erred in equating the selection of a destination to
determining a path on how to route data" (Reply Br. 2). We find that
selecting a destination is distinguishable from selecting a path to that
destination, because there can be various ways to get to the destination.
The Examiner further finds that "Erofeev's system copies the data
from the source logs to appropriate replication volume(s) or location(s)"
4
Appeal2018-001096
Application 14/145,465
(Ans. 6) and "[t]he data agent maps/selects appropriate network storage
paths for replication data and copies application specific data from the
replication logs to the replication volumes" (id.). We also disagree that
Erofeev discloses the argued feature, i.e., determining which one of a
plurality of physical communication paths between the database table and a
replication server is to be used to route data rows for replication (see claim
1 ).
For example, Erofeev discloses:
The illustrated destination system 104 further comprises an
optional preference database 470 .... [T]he preference
database 470 includes storage policies or other preferences
usable by the replication agent 356 in managing data .... The
preference database 470 may also store path information for
detailing to which location(s) on the replication volumes(s)
116A, 116B the data in the replication log(s) 352 should be
copied.
(if 139.)
The data agent 236 may also request information from the
replication agent 356 and/or other network management
components for any information that may bear on, or be related
to, the correlation or mapping of network storage paths for
replication data. . . . Based on this information, data paths may
be identified for use by threads 3 5 8 when copying data from the
replication logs 352 to the replication volumes 116A, 116B. In
certain embodiments, one or more data paths may be
dynamically coded or determined, such as, for example, based
on one or more storage policies and/or preferences.
(if 195.)
In other words, Erofeev discloses determining data paths used at a
destination system to store files or folders from replication logs to
replication volumes, i.e., storage policies for already replicated data. Thus,
5
Appeal2018-001096
Application 14/145,465
we agree with Appellants that "Erofeev describes a 'path' as being an
organizational structure of folders and directories ... where a [ replicated]
file or folder is stored" (Reply Br. 3), as opposed to paths from a database
table for replication to a replication server that performs the replication, as
required by the claims and explained in Appellants' Specification (see claim
1; see also Abstract; Spec. ,r 20).
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that the combined
teaching of Singh and Erofeev teaches or suggests determining which path
between the database table and a replication server is to be used to route data
rows for replication, as recited in each of the independent claims. The
Examiner has not found any of the other references of record teach this
feature. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1-15, 17-20, and 23-25.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15, 17-20, and 23-25
is reversed.
REVERSED
6