Ex Parte Spielberg et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 10, 201912981366 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/981,366 12/29/2010 64280 7590 05/14/2019 Mintz Levin/SAP Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 Lars Spielberg 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. 34874-492F01US 6438 EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/14/2019 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): IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com IPFileroombos@mintz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LARS SPIELBERG and MICHAEL POHLMANN Appeal2018-000052 Application 12/981,366 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, IRVINE. BRANCH, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8-13 and 15-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE of Walldorf, Germany. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-000052 Application 12/981,366 BACKGROUND THE INVENTION Appellants describes the invention as follows: A wireless relay device emits a beacon and makes a wireless connection with a terminal responding to the beacon, which includes a selecting section capable of alternatively selecting a normal mode in which the beacon is emitted in a first cycle and a power saving mode in which the beacon is emitted in a second cycle longer than the first cycle. Abstract. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: defining a plurality of data containers in a storage subsystem, each data container comprising a main data storage and a file system data storage that receive, respectively, main data and file system data, the main data including database data, the file system data including search engine data, and each of the plurality of data containers being separate from all other data containers of the plurality of data containers; for each tenant of a plurality of tenants of a multi-tenancy computing system, storing the main data in the main data storage of one of the plurality of data containers and storing the file system data in the file system data storage of the one of the plurality of data containers, each of the plurality of data containers associated with only one tenant of the plurality of tenants and storing the main data and the file system data of the only one tenant; for a transaction to be executed with a source tenant, accessing the database data included in the main data and the search engine data included in the file system data from a data container associated with only the source tenant and none of a remaining plurality of tenants; and executing the transaction with the database data included in the main data and the search engine data included in the file 2 Appeal2018-000052 Application 12/981,366 system data, the database data and the search engme data accessed from the data container associated with the source tenant. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Anzai (US 2009/0228532 Al; Sept. 10, 2009), Becker (US 2008/0162491 Al; July 3, 2008) and Applicant's Admitted Prior Art ("AAP A"). Final Act. 3-7. 2. Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Anzai, Becker, AAPA and Nagata (US 8,239,346 B2; Aug. 7, 2012). Final Act. 7-9. 3. Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Anzair, Becker, AAPA and Murase (US 8,103,842 B2; Jan. 24, 2012). Final Act. 9-11. DISCUSSION Appellants argue the references do not disclose or suggest two features of claim 12 : "1) fully segregated storage of data from different tenants in separate data containers, and 2) executing a transaction with a tenant by accessing only the data container that is associated with that tenant." App. Br. 10. Appellants characterize the first feature as "homogeneous data persistence" and argue the references "do not disclose or 2 Appellants argue claims 1---6, 8-13 and 15-19 as a group, specifically addressing the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. See App. Br. 10-17. We take claim 1 to be representative and, therefore, we decide the rejection of this group of claims on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016). 3 Appeal2018-000052 Application 12/981,366 suggest the homogeneous data persistence set forth in claims 1, 8, and 15." App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 5 ("claims 1, 8, and 15 sets forth a multi- tenant computing system that includes only tenant-exclusive data containers. No shared data containers are allowed to exist in the claimed multi-tenant computing system"). Instead, Appellants argue, Becker "describes heterogeneous data persistence in which data from different tenants is not fully segregated in separate data containers" because Becker "includes shared data structures that that [sic] comingles data from more than one tenant." App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5 ("Becker actually teaches away from the claimed subject matter because Becker's multitenant computing system expressly includes these shared data structures, which do not store only data from a single tenant"). Similarly, Appellants argue Becker "does not disclose a plurality of data containers in which every data container is associated with only a single tenant and stores only data from that single tenant." App. Br. 13. With respect to the second feature, Appellants argue the references do not "disclose or suggest executing a transaction with a tenant by accessing only a data container that is associated with that tenant." App. Br. 14, 15. For example, Appellants argue Becker "permits access to the shared data structures" when executing a transaction. App. Br. 15. According to Appellants "the language of these claims not only prohibits access to data containers that are associated with other tenants but also access to data containers associated with multiple tenants." App. Br. 15. 4 Appeal2018-000052 Application 12/981,366 We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments because they are incommensurate with the scope of the claims. 3 Appellants argue the claims require "homogeneous data persistence" (App. Br. 11) in which "[ n Jo shared data containers are allowed to exist" (Reply Br. 5). We disagree. The claims recite "a plurality of data containers" in which each data container is "separate from all other data containers" and "associated with only one tenant of the plurality of tenants and storing [data] ... of the only one tenant." While we agree these claim limitations require the plurality of data containers to be homogeneous (in the way Appellants use that term) the limitations do not preclude other data containers or storage areas from storing data heterogeneously. In other words, so long as Becker teaches some data containers that are exclusive to their associated tenants, Becker teaches the claimed "plurality of data containers." The fact that Becker may have other data containers or storage areas that are shared does not prevent Becker from teaching or suggesting the claimed plurality of data containers. Similarly, we disagree the claims require "executing a transaction with a tenant by accessing only the data container that is associated with that tenant." App. Br. 10. Claim 1 recites that "for a transaction to be executed with a source tenant, accessing ... a data container associated with only the source tenant and none of a remaining plurality of tenants" and then 3 Appellants attempted to address the issue with the scope of the claim by proposing amendments making it clear that "only a data container that is associated with the source tenant" is accessed for a transaction with that source tenant and further that the transaction is executed by "accessing only the data container associated with the source tenant." Amendment After Final Action Under 37 C.F.R. 1.116, Aug. 1, 2016 (emphasis added). These amendments, however, were not entered by the Office. Notice of Decision from Post-Prosecution Pilot Program (P3) Conference, Sept. 29, 1016. 5 Appeal2018-000052 Application 12/981,366 executing the transaction with that data. Claim 1 does not preclude executing the transaction using additional data from other data containers that may include shared data, so long as data is accessed from "a data container associated with only the source tenant." Becker teaches "tenant-specific data structures" associated with each individual tenant that are isolated from other tenants' spaces. See App. Br. 15 (quoting Becker ,r,r 37-38 which mention tenant-specific data structures); Ans. 3--4 (citing Becker ,r,r 37, 38, 61, Fig. 2). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Becker teaches the claimed "plurality of data containers" that are "separate from all other data containers" and "associated with only one tenant of the plurality of tenants and storing [data] ... of the only one tenant." We also agree that the combination of Anzai and Becker teaches "for a transaction to be executed with a source tenant, accessing ... a data container associated with only the source tenant and none of a remaining plurality of tenants" and executing that transaction. Final Act. 4--5 ( citing Anzai ,r,r 14, 82, 124; Becker ,r,r 58, 61, 83). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of the appealed claims. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8-13 and 15-19 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation