Ex Parte Ronstrom

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2011

10471822 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2011)

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.
10/471,822 09/15/2003 Mikael Ronstrom SUN080548-US-NP 1080
81505 7590 01/25/2011
MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP
(Oracle formerly d/b/a Sun Microsystems)
8055 East Tufts Avenue
Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237
EXAMINER
DAYE, CHELCIE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MIKAEL RONSTRÖM
________________

Appeal 2009-004589
Application 10/471,822
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAY P. LUCAS, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-004589
Application 10/471,822

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 22-41. Claims 1-21 are canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to recovery of a node in a system with a
distributed database (Spec. 1, ll. 4-6).
Claim 22 is illustrative:
22. A method for node recovery of a first node in a
system comprising a distributed database, which method
involves recovering at least one first database fragment in
the first node; which method includes the steps of
retrieving an old version of the first database fragment to
the first node, the old version of the first database
fragment containing a plurality of records each
individually marked with a first timestamp respectively;
making the old version of the first database fragment
available to write transactions, which are requested in the
system and which affect records of the first database
fragment;
deleting records in the old version of the first database
fragment based on information from a delete log, which
delete log is a log that consists of information related to
delete transactions;
scanning an up to date version of the first database
fragment in a second node for records with first
timestamps indicating a point in time later than or equal
to a predetermined point in time; and
copying only the records found in the scanning step that
have timestamps indicating a point in time later than or
Appeal 2009-004589
Application 10/471,822

3
equal to a predetermined point in time to the old version
of the first database fragment,
wherein said method steps bring the old version of the
first database fragment up to date such that the first
database fragment is recovered in the first node.
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence in
support of the rejection:
Daniels US 5,278,982 Jan. 11, 1994
Hvasshovd US 5,423,037 Jun. 6, 1995
Hara US 5,758,356 May 26, 1998
Lomet US 5,764,877 Jun. 9, 1998
Wilkerson US 5,778,387 Jul. 7, 1998
Mukhopadhyay US 6,032,158 Feb. 29, 2000
Mikael Ronström, Crash Recovery in NDB Cluster, a Parallel Data
Server for Telecom Applications (Dec. 8, 1999) (“Ronström”).
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
1) Claims 22, 23, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hvasshovd, Lomet, and Hara.
2) Claims 24-26 and 34-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hvasshovd, Lomet, Hara, and Mukhopadhyay.
3) Claims 27 and 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hvasshovd, Lomet, Hara, and Ronström.
4) Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hvasshovd, Lomet, Hara, and Daniels.
5) Claims 31 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hvasshovd, Lomet, Hara, and Wilkerson.
Appeal 2009-004589
Application 10/471,822

4
ISSUES
Appellant argues that “Hara does not disclose any log that only logs
delete transactions performed on database records” (App. Br. 6)
Did the Examiner err in finding that Hvasshovd, Lomet, and Hara
discloses or suggests a delete log consisting of information related to delete
transactions?
FINDING OF FACT
The following Finding of Fact (FF) is shown by a preponderance of
the evidence:
Hara discloses an index entry insertion log separate from an index
entry deletion log (fig. 2), where the index entry deletion log contains
“a deletion key . . . a pointer . . . to deletion data, and buffer recovery
information” (col. 7, ll. 15-17), the buffer recovery data including
“results of update operations” (col. 7, l. 18) and “a physical node
image updated” (col. 7, ll. 21-22).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).

Appeal 2009-004589
Application 10/471,822

5
ANALYSIS
Claim 22 recites deleting records based on a delete log “that consists
of information related to delete transactions” (Claims App’x). “The phrase
‘consisting of’ is a term of art in patent law signifying restriction and
exclusion” Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377,
1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2000) such that the delete log recited in claim 22
contains “information related to delete transactions” and nothing else.
The Examiner finds that, in Hara, “Fig. 2, item 210 shows a ‘deletion
log’” (Ans. 15) but does not demonstrate that the “deletion log” of Hara
contains only information related to delete transactions and nothing else as
required by the claim limitation that the delete log consists of information
related to delete transactions. Rather, the “index entry deletion log 210”
illustrated in Fig. 2 of Hara is disclosed as containing “buffer recovery
information 213” that includes information other than that related to delete
transactions. For example, the index entry deletion log of Hara also contains
buffer recovery information which, in turn, includes “a physical node image
updated” and “results of update operations,” neither of which was shown by
the Examiner to be related to delete transactions (FF).
In fact, Hara discloses that the “buffer recovery information 213” (col.
7, l. 16) contains information that “is physically copied on the buffer” so that
“the buffer can be easily recovered” (col. 7, ll. 24-25) with “results of update
operations” (col. 7, l. 18). We do not find, and the Examiner has not shown,
that the results of update operations contained in Hara’s Index Entry
Deletion Log (Fig. 2) pertain to delete transactions.
Appeal 2009-004589
Application 10/471,822

6
The Examiner further states that Hara discloses that “the index entry is
deleted from the node,” an “insertion key 314 and pointer 315 to data in the
split start log 310” are used to delete a pointer to data, and that “[a]fter the
pointer to data is deleted, OFF is set to the split completion flag” (Ans. 16).
However, none of these disclosures in Hara indicate that the “index entry
deletion log” contains “information related to delete transactions” and
nothing else as required in claim 22.
Independent claim 32 recites a similar feature as claim 22.
For at least these reasons, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 22 and 32, and claims 23-31 and 33-41, which depend therefrom.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we find that the
Examiner erred in finding that Hvasshovd, Lomet, and Hara discloses or
suggests a delete log consisting of information related to delete transactions.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 22-41 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-004589
Application 10/471,822

7
MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP
(Oracle formerly d/b/a Sun Microsystems)
8055 East Tufts Avenue
Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237