Ex Parte Saffer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 18, 2010

10068466 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 18, 2010)

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.
10/068,466 02/05/2002 Sally Elaine Saffer 200302250-1 6758
7590 10/18/2010
IP Administration
Legal Dept., M/S 35
Hewlett-Packard Company
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400
EXAMINER
ORTIZ, BELIX M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2010 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 SALLY ELAINE SAFFER, MARIO J. BROODBAKKER,
RAYMOND J. LALIBERTE, and JOHN F. REED JR.
____________

Appeal 2009-005032
Application 10/068,466
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL 1

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 2009-005032
Application 10/068,466

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 8-22, 29-35, 39-53, 60-63,
65-67, and 69-73. The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

INVENTION
The Appellants describe the invention at issue on appeal as follows.
An operational data store consists of an insert table for
storing new data and a history table, partitioned by range and
further sub-partitioned, for storing historical data. Transfer
logic periodically transfers new data from the insert table to the
history table. The transfer logic includes a secondary table and
fill logic for filling the secondary table with selected data from
the insert table. Secondary transfer logic transfers the
secondary table into the history table, such that the selected data
is transferred into the history table. Indexing logic applies the
history table indexing scheme to the secondary table. Table
logic creates a new partition the history table, for swapping
with the secondary table, by exchanging respective pointers. A
query engine may apply a database query to both the history
table and the insert table, so that all data is available. An
aggregator accumulates new data into an aggregation buffer.
The accumulated data are batched and transferred into the insert
table with a single database access. A throttler throttles
transactions of different classes and types independently to
achieve a desired level of service.
(Spec. 30.)

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1. An operational data store, comprising:
an insert table for storing new data;
a history table for storing historical data; and
Appeal 2009-005032
Application 10/068,466

3
transfer logic for periodically transferring new data from
the insert table to the history table.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 8-13, 29-35, 39-44, 62, 63, 66, and 67 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawai (U.S. Pat. No.
5,717,924) and Goldring (U.S. Pat. No. 5,553,279).
Claims 14-22 and 45-53 stand rejected under § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kawai, Goldring, and Kessler (U.S. Pat. No. 5,761,706).
Claims 60-61, 65, and 69 stand rejected under § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kawai and Vandivier (U.S. Pat. No. 5,978,771).
Claims 70-73 stand rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Battas (U.S. Pat. No. 6,757,689) and Goldring.

CLAIMS 1-4, 8-22, 29-35, 39-53, 62, 63, 66, AND 67
Based on the Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1-4, 8-22, 29-35, 39-53, 62, 63, 66, and 67 based on claim 1 alone.

ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Goldring teaches transferring data from one table to another.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Goldring discloses the following invention
A computer processing system that receives sequences of
changes to a data base and records them into an activity log for
later retrieval also maintains a consistent change data table that
Appeal 2009-005032
Application 10/068,466

4
contains sufficient change information for each of the changes
to the data base such that the changes can be propagated
through multiple copies of the data base by consulting the
consistent change data table.
(Abstract, ll. 1-7.)

ANALYSIS
"It is not the function of [the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant,
looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art." In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991). "Similarly, it is not the
function of this Board to examine claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for distinctions over the prior art." Ex Parte Shen,
No. 2008-0418, 2008 WL 4105791 at * 9 (BPAI 2008).
Here, the Examiner finds that "Goldring on col. 6, lines 27-41 teach
transferring the information from two system tables." (Ans. 22.) The cited
part of the reference supports the Examiner's finding by teaching that "[t]o
read the activity log, the system 10 includes a Log Read Processor 40 that
reads the entries in the activity log 32 and transfers the information from the
log to two system tables, a Change_Data table 42 and a Unit_of_Work
(UOW) table 44." (Col. 6, ll. 27-31.)
For their part, the Appellants do not address the Examiner's reliance
on col. 6, lines 27-41, of Goldring. Instead, they quote "[c]ol. 2, line 66 -
col. 3, line 11" (App. Br. 11) of the reference for the proposition that "data
are not transferred from the source data tables to the activity log, or from the
activity log to the consistent change data table, but only copied." (Id.) Their
argument about a different part of Goldring, however, does not persuade us
Appeal 2009-005032
Application 10/068,466

5
of error in the Examiner's findings. Therefore, we conclude that the
Examiner did not err in finding that Goldring teaches transferring data from
one table to another.

CLAIMS 60-61, 65, AND 69
The Examiner admits that "Kawai does not teach creating a new
partition in a composite-partitioned history table." (Ans. 17.)

ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Vandivier teaches creating a new partition in a composite-partitioned history
table.

FINDINGS OF FACT
"The field of [Vandivier's] invention is the mining industry,
particularly the bulk transfer, processing, blending, and storage of natural
resources." (Col. 1, ll. 11-13.) The reference's "invention relates to the
tracking of the entire [natural] resource allocation chain." (Col. 3, ll. 39-40.)

ANALYSIS
"Claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a
part." Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (en banc) (citations omitted).
Here, independent claims 60 and 65 recite in pertinent part the
following limitation: "creating a new partition in a composite-partitioned
history table." Independent claim 69 recites an almost identical limitation.
Appeal 2009-005032
Application 10/068,466

6
We agree with the Appellants that "[s]upport for this [limitation] . . . is
provided, for example, at page 15, lines 18-19 of the present application,
which states that in step 206 of FIG. 6, 'a new partition is created in the
historical table, partitioned by range and sub-partitioned by the number of
database server instances.'" (App. Br. 15-16.) We also agree with them that
"generally, the act of 'partitioning' involves decomposing a database table
into smaller pieces called 'partitions.'" (Id. at 16.)
For his part, the Examiner finds that "Vandivier, III teaches method
for tracking natural resources on a resource allocation system (see abstract),
in which he teaches creating a new partition in a composite-partitioned
history table (see column 11, lines 20-27 and column 12, lines 19-23)."
(Ans. 17.) A part of the reference cited by the Examiner teaches "how a
partition table is updated 601." (Col. 11, l. 21.)
We agree with the Appellants, however, that "the 'partition tables'
described by Vandivier are called 'partition tables' not because the tables
themselves are partitioned, but rather because the tables contain information
about resources (particularly natural resources used in the mining industry)
that may be subdivided or 'partitioned.'" (App. Br. 16.) Therefore, we
conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that Vandivier teaches creating
a new partition in a composite-partitioned history table.

CLAIMS 70-73
The Examiner admits that "Battas et al. does not teach a throttler for
throttling selected transactions to the ODS," (Ans. 20), i.e., operational data
store.

Appeal 2009-005032
Application 10/068,466

7
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Goldring teaches throttling selected transactions to an ODS.

ANALYSIS
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual
determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and
inherently." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations
omitted).
The Examiner makes the following findings.
Goldring teaches "As a result, the rows in the Consistent_
Change_Data table will provide a listing of the update
transactions in the order in which they were committed,
sequence information used to order conflicting updates within a
single transaction, and operational information used to specify
whether a change was an insert, update, or delete operation",
(see Goldring, column 7, lines 10-15). Throttler is use to
slowdown the process and let the first on the hierarchy to by
first and Goldring teaches list the update order in which they
were committed.
(Ans. 23.)
We agree with the Appellants, however, that this part of "Goldring
merely describes recording information about transactions that have been
performed. Goldring does not describe slowing the processing of certain
transactions, or performing any other kind of throttling." (App. Br. 19.)
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that Goldring
teaches throttling selected transactions to an ODS.

Appeal 2009-005032
Application 10/068,466

8
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-4, 8-22, 29-35, 39-53, 62, 63, 66,
and 67 but reverse the rejections of claims 60, 61, and 69-73.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc

IP Administration
Legal Dept., M/S 35
Hewlett-Packard Company
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400