Ex parte Schofield et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2000

08299715 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2000)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not
written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ANDREW J. SCHOFIELD and ANTHONY R. WASHER
____________
Appeal No. 1997-1933
Application No. 08/299,715
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, FLEMING, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 12 and 13, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellants' invention relates to a fault-tolerant
transaction-oriented data processing system and method in
which, for a resource which is to be updated within a
transaction, an exclusive semaphore lock is obtained and
Appeal No. 1997-1933
Application No. 08/299,715
2
subsequently released in response to an indicator being set,
prior to completion of the transaction. Claim 12 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
12. A method of fault-tolerant transaction-oriented data
processing in which resource updates performed by processes
within a transaction are backed out atomically following
occurrence of a failure before resolution of said transaction,
or are committed on successful completion of said transaction,
said method comprising the steps of:
for each resource updating operation to be performed
within said transaction, obtaining a mutually exclusive
semaphore lock for a resource which is to be updated;
performing a resource updating operation within said
transaction in response to an operation request;
setting an indicator signifying that said resource
updating operation has been performed within said transaction,
said indicator making said operation request inaccessible to
said processes;
in response to said indicator being set, releasing said
mutually exclusive semaphore lock prior to completion of said
transaction;
in response to successful completion of said transaction,
committing all operations within said transaction for which
said indicator has been set; and
in response to an occurrence of a failure before
resolution of said transaction, backing out all operations
within said transaction for which said indicator has been set.
Appeal No. 1997-1933
Application No. 08/299,715
The examiner lists several references in the prior art section of the1
Answer which were not actually relied upon in the rejection of the claims
under appeal. We have considered only those references that were applied
against the appealed claims.
3
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:1
Oracle RDBMS, SQL Language Reference Manual, Version 7.0, May
1992, pp. 5-101 to 5-105 and 5-314 to 5-320. (Oracle SQL)
Oracle RDBMS, Database Administrator's Guide, Version 7.0, May
1992, chapters 1, 12, 14, and 26. (Oracle DBA)
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Oracle SQL and Oracle DBA.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed September 30, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants'
Brief (Paper No. 13, filed July 1, 1996) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 15, filed November 13, 1996) for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
Appeal No. 1997-1933
Application No. 08/299,715
4
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 12
and 13.
Appellants' invention as set forth in claim 12 involves
setting an indicator to effectively lock out other processes
from the operation request. In response to the indicator, a
mutually exclusive semaphore lock can be released prior to
completion of the transaction. Appellants' arguments are all
directed to the claimed indicator and the relationship between
the indicator and the mutually exclusive semaphore lock.
Therefore, we will limit our discussion to those elements.
As asserted by appellants (Brief, page 6), in the
rejection, the examiner makes no mention of an indicator, and,
therefore, fails to point to where such an indicator is
suggested by Oracle SQL or Oracle DBA. Similarly, appellants
contend (Brief, page 5) that in the rejection, the examiner
fails to indicate any portion of Oracle SQL or Oracle DBA
which suggests that the mutually exclusive semaphore lock is
released in response to the setting of the indicator and prior
to completion of the transaction. We agree with appellants.
The explanation of the rejection is completely devoid of any
Appeal No. 1997-1933
Application No. 08/299,715
5
references to an indicator or its relationship to the mutually
exclusive semaphore lock.
In response to appellants' Brief, the examiner argues
(Answer, page 8) that "[t]he claimed functions of semaphores
and indications to save each and every transaction, are
functionally equivalent to SQL savepoints and savepoints
(embedded SQL), at 5-319 and 5-3-120 [sic, 5-320]." The
savepoints on pages 5-319 and 5-320 of Oracle SQL, "identify a
point in a transaction to which you can later roll back."
Further, Oracle DBA (page 1-27) discloses that "[b]y using
savepoints, you can arbitrarily mark your work at any point
within a long transaction." In other words, a savepoint
preserves changes up to the savepoint and then acts as a
marker for where the rollback should stop. However, the
claimed indicators must "mak[e] said operation request
inaccessible to said processes," not save the transaction.
Nowhere does Oracle SQL or Oracle DBA disclose any such
function for savepoints. Therefore, the savepoints are not
functionally equivalent to the claimed indicators.
The examiner further asserts (Answer, page 8) that Oracle
DBA discloses that locks are "released when the transaction no
Appeal No. 1997-1933
Application No. 08/299,715
6
longer requires the resources, not only when the transaction
is complete." The examiner concludes that Oracle DBA teaches
the release of the lock prior to completion of the
transaction. However, the page referenced by the examiner
states that the lock is released "when certain events occur
and the transaction no longer requires the resource" (emphasis
ours). Further, on page 12-6, 12-11, and 12-16, Oracle DBA
states that all locks "are released when the transaction is
either committed or rolled back." Thus, the "certain events"
appear to be the committing or rolling back of the
transaction. In other words, viewing the disclosure as a
whole, we find that Oracle DBA does not release the locks
before the transaction is complete, but rather releases them
when the transaction is committed or rolled back.
Furthermore, the examiner states (Answer, page 9) that
the portions of Oracle DBA and Oracle SQL relied upon
"demonstrate the current state in the art of software
programming in a data transaction processing environment;
which is the ability to release an exclusive lock while
enabling a transaction and process to continue without
corrupting a shared resource." Besides the fact that the
Appeal No. 1997-1933
Application No. 08/299,715
7
reference indicates just the opposite of what the examiner
says, the examiner appears to be confused as to the standard
for obviousness. Merely that the prior art can be modified in
the manner suggested by the examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-4 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Oracle's
ability to release an exclusive lock prior to completion of
the transaction is not the same as either the disclosure of
actually releasing the lock early or the obviousness of doing
so. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection
of claim 12.
Claim 13 parallels claim 12 with means for accomplishing
each of the method steps of claim 12. Thus, claim 13 includes
the same indicator and relationship between the indicator and
the mutually exclusive semaphore lock found above to be
lacking from Oracle DBA and Oracle SQL. Therefore, the
rejection of claim 13 suffers from the same deficiencies as
claim 12. Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claim 13.
Appeal No. 1997-1933
Application No. 08/299,715
8
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 12 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-1933
Application No. 08/299,715
9
ANDREW J DILLON
FELSMAN BRADLEY GUNTER & DILLON
SUITE 350, LAKEWOOD ON THE PARK
7600B NORTH CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY
AUSTIN, TX 78731