Ex Parte Suto

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 19, 2008

09819612 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 19, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte AKIO SUTO
____________

Appeal 2008-0872
Application 09/819,6121
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: March 19, 2008
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 19. Appellant presented oral arguments on
March 12, 2008. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Filed on Mar. 29, 2001. The real party in interest is Fuji Photo Film, Co.
Ltd. of Japan.
Appeal 2008-0872
Application 09/819,612

The Invention
Appellant invented a method and system for allowing a plurality of
clients (20, 22, 24, 26, 30, 32) to perform distributed data processing at a
plurality of servers (12, 14). As depicted in Figure 1, upon a client’s
updating of a database (122) located at a first server (12), a replication
trigger generator (132) contained in the first server (12) generates a
replication trigger based on the update. Then, the replication trigger update
is forwarded to an updating information transfer unit (130) in the first server
(12) to transfer the updated information to a database (142) contained in a
second server (14). (Spec. 10-11.)

An understanding of the invention can be derived from exemplary
independent claim 1, which reads as follows:
. 1. A distributed data processing system comprising a plurality of
servers and a plurality of clients connected to the servers for performing a
distributed data processing process on an object to be controlled,
each of said servers comprising:
a database memory for storing a database which is updated by the
distributed data processing process performed by said clients;
a replication trigger generator for generating a replication trigger
based on the updating of said database by the distributed data processing
process performed by said clients connected to one of the servers;
an updating information transfer unit for transferring updating
information of said database to another one of the servers based on said
replication trigger;
2
Appeal 2008-0872
Application 09/819,612

a database updating processor for updating said database based on the
updating information transferred from the other server; and
an archive data memory for storing updating information of said
database as archive data;
wherein at least part of said database is recovered using said archive
data.

In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Nakamura US 5,347,463 Sep. 13, 1993
Makinen US 5,758,068 May 26, 1998
Nguyen US 6,202, 070 Mar. 13, 2001
Mayhead US 6,367,029 Apr. 02, 2002
(filed Nov. 3, 1998)

The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 7 through 9, and 16 through 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Mayhead.

2. Claims 3, 4, 10 through 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Mayhead and
Makinen.

3. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Mayhead and Nakamura.

4. Claims 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Mayhead and Nguyen.
3
Appeal 2008-0872
Application 09/819,612

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Mayhead
1. As depicted in Figure 1, Mayhead discloses a file server system
(60) having a plurality of nodes for separately storing in each of said nodes
software and hardware components that can be accessed by a plurality of
client computers (50, 52, 54). (Col. 2, ll. 17-28.) The nodes of the file
server system act as hosts for the software components including the system
file store. (Col. 2, l. 65- col. 3, l. 18.)

2. As shown in Figure 2, the file server system (60) includes a
primary file store (1) located at a first node and a back up copy of the
primary file (secondary file store (2)) located at a second node. It also
includes a replication manager (8) having its instances distributed in each of
the nodes to maintain coherence between said nodes. (Col. 3, ll. 18-27.)

3. Upon receiving a read or write request from a client, the file server
system performs a consistency check by having the replication manager (8)
inform a logger (10) and checker (4) units of the request. Then, the primary
store forwards a replication request to the backup store which updates its file
and subsequently executes the request. (Col. 8, ll. 23-44.)

4
Appeal 2008-0872
Application 09/819,612

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
ANTICIPATION
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452,
1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005), citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at
issue “reads on” a prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc.,
190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if granting patent
protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the
public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless
of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”) (internal
citations omitted).

OBVIOUSNESS
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
5
Appeal 2008-0872
Application 09/819,612

rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).

The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
(1966), stated that the following factual inquiries underpin any
determination of obviousness:
Under § 103, [1] the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; [2] differences between the prior art and the claims
at issue are to be ascertained; and [3] the level of ordinary skill
in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the
obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is
determined. Such (4) secondary considerations as commercial
success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.,
might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding
the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As
indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may
have relevancy.

Where the claimed subject matter involves more than the simple
substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a
known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding
of obviousness must be based on “an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1740-41 (2007). That is, “there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Such reasoning can be based on interrelated teachings
6
Appeal 2008-0872
Application 09/819,612

of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community
or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 16-19
Independent claims 1 and 7 recite in relevant part generating a
replication trigger based on a client’s update of a database at a first server to
thereby update a database at a second server. (App. Br., Claims Appendix.)
Appellant argues that Mayhead does not teach that limitation. Particularly,
Appellant submits that Mayhead discloses an intra-server communication
system having a replication manager, which replicates information between
a primary file store to a back up file store. However, Appellant argues that
Mayhead’s teaching is limited to a single server, and it is silent on whether
the replication is performed in response to a replication trigger signal caused
from a database update. (App. Br. 13-14.)

The Examiner, in response, avers that Mayhead discloses a replication
manager that decides when to replicate files of a primary store in a
secondary backup store. The Examiner consequently concludes that the
replication manager teaches the claimed replication trigger generator. (Ans.
15-18.)

Therefore, the pivotal issue before us is whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would find that the replication manager in Mayhead’s file server
7
Appeal 2008-0872
Application 09/819,612

system teaches a replication trigger generator as claimed. We answer this
inquiry in the affirmative.

As detailed in the findings of facts section above, Mayhead discloses a
file server system having a plurality of nodes, wherein a replication manager
replicates in a secondary backup database located in a second node files of a
primary database located in a first node. (FF. 2.) Further, Mayhead
discloses that each of the nodes includes instances of the replication
manager to maintain coherence between said nodes. (Id.) Additionally,
Mayhead discloses that upon receiving a read/write request at the file server
system, the primary store performs a consistency check. Then, the
replication manager sends the request to the secondary backup database to
update its files, and to process the request. (FF. 3.) One of ordinary skill in
the art would readily recognize that the primary node and the secondary
node in the file server system that separately house the primary database and
the secondary backup database respectively each include at least one
processor. This is evident from the fact that each of these nodes, upon being
queried, can independently process a request to provide a result. Further, the
ordinarily skilled artisan would also recognize that using a single processor
access two separate databases located at different nodes would defeat the
overarching goal of Mayhead, which is to increase data availability and fault
tolerance. In other words, using a single processor to field and process
requests from and to all the nodes would create a bottleneck situation. It
would further cause the availability of the entire system to depend solely on
that single processor. Clearly, this is not the case here in Mayhead.
8
Appeal 2008-0872
Application 09/819,612

Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that each of the
nodes in the file server subsystem includes a server for processing requests
and updates received from the client and the replication manager. In
addition to the processor, the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that
each of said servers includes an instance of the replication manager and a
data store.

Furthermore, the ordinarily skilled artisan would also recognize
Mayhead’s teaching of including an instance of the replication manager in
each of the nodes to maintain coherence between them as an indication that
it seeks to keep the nodes in sync with one another. Particularly, when it
comes to the two nodes that house the primary and secondary databases, the
ordinarily skilled artisan would appreciate that in order to keep these nodes
coherent, upon updating one node, the other one should be updated as well.
This teaching is further reinforced by Mayhead’s disclosure of the
replication manager updating a secondary node upon the primary node’s
receiving a request from a client in order to foster consistency between said
nodes. Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan would appreciate that
Mayhead’s replication manager instructs the secondary node where the
backup database is located to update its file in order to remain consistent and
coherent with the database in the primary node. It follows that Appellant
has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Mayhead anticipates
independent claims 1 and 7.

9
Appeal 2008-0872
Application 09/819,612

Regarding claim 19, Appellant argues that Mayhead does not teach
updating the database prior to generating the trigger. (App. Br. 15.) We do
not agree. One of ordinary skill would recognize that in order to maintain
coherence or consistency between the two nodes housing the primary
database and the secondary backup database, one node has to be first
updated before the updated data can be replicated in the other node.
Particularly, when an update occurs in one of the two nodes, the replication
manager will detect that an inconsistency or incoherence has arisen between
the data in the two nodes, and it will therefore forward a message to the
other node to replicate said updated data to restore the consistency and
coherence between said nodes. Therefore, Mayhead teaches updating a
database at a first node before sending a message to another database at a
second node to update its files. It follows that Appellant has not shown that
the Examiner erred in finding that Mayhead anticipates claims 19.

Appellant did not provide separate arguments with respect to the
rejection of dependent claims 2, 8, 9, and 16 through 18. Therefore, we
select independent claim 1 as being representative of the cited claims.
Consequently, these dependent claims fall together with representative claim
1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Claims 3 through 6, 10 through 15
Appellant argues that neither Makinen, nor Nakamura, nor Nguyen
cures the deficiencies of Mayhead as argued for independent claims 1 and 7.
(App. Br. 16-17.) We have already addressed Appellant’s arguments
10
Appeal 2008-0872
Application 09/819,612

regarding these independent claims. We find no such deficiencies in
Mayhead for these secondary references to cure. It follows that Appellant
has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the separate
combinations of Mayhead with Makinen, Nakamura, and Nguyen renders
claims 3, 4 , 10 through 12 and 14, claims 5 and 6, and claims 13 and 15,
respectively, unpatentable.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that:

1. Mayhead anticipates claims 1, 2, 7 through 9, and 16 through 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

2. The combination of Mayhead and Makinen renders claims 3, 4, 10
through 12, and 14 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

3. The combination of Mayhead and Nakamura renders claims 5 and 6
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

4. The combination of Mayhead and Nguyen renders claims 13 and 15
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 19.

11
Appeal 2008-0872
Application 09/819,612

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

clj

SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-3213

12