Ex Parte Wiss et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 4, 2010

10605154 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 4, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD WISS, NAVEEN PUTTAGUNTA, DEREK G.
REIGER, and DAVID R. SETZKE JR.
____________________

Decided: February 4, 2010

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAY P. LUCAS, and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-43 under
35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154

2
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates generally to
information processing environments and, more particularly, to improved
methods for replicating transactions which are posted in a data processing
system, such as a database management system (DBMS) (Spec. 2-3, ¶
[0006]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A method for replicating a transaction from a primary
database to a replicate database while the replicate database
remains available for use, the method comprising:

recording information about a transaction being
performed at a primary database in a transaction log;

synchronously copying the information about the
transaction in the transaction log to a mirrored transaction log,
so as to create at the replicate database an exact copy of the
transaction log;

generating a reconstructed transaction based on the
information about the transaction copied to the mirrored
transaction log; and

applying the reconstructed transaction at the replicate
database while the replicate database remains available for use.

Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154

3
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shih US 6,615,223 B1 Sep. 2, 2003
(filed on Feb. 29, 2000)

Reidel, “When Local Becomes Global: An Application Study
of Data Consistency in a Networked World,” IEEE, 266-271
(2001).

Claims 1-8, 10-23, 25-32, and 34-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Shih; and
Claims 9, 24, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Shih in view of Riedel.

II. ISSUE
The threshold issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that
the Examiner erred in determining that Shih discloses “synchronously
copying the information about the transaction in the transaction log to a
mirrored transaction log, so as to create at the replicate database an exact
copy of the transaction log” (claim 1).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.

Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154

4
Shih
1. Shih discloses that synchronous replication is well-known, which
includes the propagation of changes to all replicas of a data object
within the same transaction as the original change to a copy of that
data object (col. 1, ll. 25-33).
2. One approach to data replication involves the exact duplication of
database schemas and data objects across all participating nodes in the
replication environment (col. 1, ll. 53-55).
3. Shih discloses using shadow log to propagate changes from one
replication site to another, wherein change log entries from change log
are copied to a replication log to be propagated to other replication
sites (col. 9, ll. 28-32).
4. The replication log is a shadow of the change log (Id.).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 102
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 Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
“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
Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154

5
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.” Id. (citations omitted).
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). "[T]he PTO gives
claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
35 U.S.C. § 103
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized "the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art," and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to
be obvious. Id. at 415 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12
(1966)). The Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that "[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Id. at 416.
Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154

6
The Court noted that “[c]ommon sense teaches . . . that familiar items may
have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a
person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420. “A person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
The Federal Circuit recently recognized that "[a]n obviousness
determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the
consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those
skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been
obvious where others would not." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416).
The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact that Leapfrog had presented no
evidence that the inclusion of a reader in the combined device was "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art." Id. at 1162 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).

V. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-8, 10-23, 25-32, and 34-43
Though Appellants admit that “Shih does describe a sync replication
system” (Br. 8), Appellants argue that “the Shih system does not have an
exact copy (mirror image) of the log (Appellant[s’] claim limitation of
‘mirrored transaction log’) at replicate sites” (Id.). In particular, Appellants
contend that “mirrored copies are created using block-level operations,
Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154

7
completely without concern as to what the data means within any given
block” therefore “one may create a replicate that is a byte-for-byte, block-
for-block exact (physically identical) copy of the primary” (Br. 10). That is,
Appellants contend that “the design choice of Shih introduces a major
disadvantage” while “Appellant[s’] system, in contrast, does not perform
Shih’s resource-intensive approach of translating records” but instead is an
approach “that preserves the original log file format and, thus, can work with
any database system without changing the underlying database log writing
function” (Br. 9-10).
The Examiner notes that “the phrase ‘exact copy’ was added to
original claims in the Amendment filed May 03, 2006, and the Specification
does not contain the phrase” (Ans. 9). Thus, the Examiner interprets “exact
copy” as “‘mirror image’, or ‘copy of the transaction log’ created by
‘synchronously copy[ing] the information about the transaction in the
transaction log to a mirrored transaction log’, as recited in claim 1” (Id.).
The Examiner further finds that “Appellant[s] improperly defined the term
‘exact’ to be ‘physical[ly] identical’, while the specification does not provide
support for the term” (Ans. 11).
The Examiner then finds that, in Shih, “log entries from the change
logs [are] copied from one to another without any modification” (Id.), and
that, though “Appellant[s] cited several portions of the Shih reference to
show that Shih’s system requires translation of the change instructions
before storing the translation log… these[] text portions are not relevant to
Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154

8
the issue because they are performed before the step of creating exact copy
of the transaction log” (Id.).
Appellants’ contention that Appellants’ system “does not perform
Shih’s resource-intensive approach of translating records” but instead “can
work with any database system without changing the underlying database
log writing function” (Br. 9-10) is not commensurate in scope with the
language of claim 1. That is, claim 1 does not preclude any “approach of
translation records” and does not require working “with any database system
without changing the underlying database log writing function” as
Appellants contend. Similarly, claim 1 does not require that the mirrored
copies are “created using block-level operations, completely without concern
as to what the data means within any given block” as Appellants contend
(Br. 10).
Accordingly, the issue that we address on appeal is whether
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in determining that Shih
discloses “synchronously copying the information about the transaction in
the transaction log to a mirrored transaction log, so as to create at the
replicate database an exact copy of the transaction log” as recited in claim 1.
We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324. Furthermore, our analysis
will not read limitations into the claims from the specification. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Claim 1 simply does not place any limitation
on what “exact” means, includes or represents, other than that the
Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154

9
information is copied to the mirrored transaction log as to create the “exact
copy” of the transaction log. In fact, as the Examiner notes, “the phrase
‘exact copy’ was added to original claims” and “the Specification does not
contain the phrase” (Ans. 9). Accordingly, we will interpret the term “exact
copy” broadly and reasonably, and will not limit the term to “physically
identical” or “mirror image” wherein “mirrored copies are created using
block-level operations, completely without concern as to what the data
means within any given block” as Appellants contend (Br. 10).
As Appellants admit, “Shih does describe a sync replication system”
(Br. 8). As Shih discloses, synchronous replication includes the
propagation of changes to all replicas of a data object within the same
transaction as the original change to a copy of that data object (FF 1). In
particular, synchronous replication involves the exact duplication of
database schemas and data objects across all participating nodes in the
replication environment (FF 2, emphasis added). In Shih, a shadow log is
used to propagate changes from one replication site to another, wherein
change log entries are copied to a replication log to be propagated to other
replication sites (FF 3) and the replication log is a shadow of change log (FF
4). As the Examiner finds, in Shih, “log entries from the change logs is
copied form one to another without any modification” (Ans. 11). An
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Shih’s replication log
containing the copied change log entries to be the exact copy of the change
log. That is, we find the replication log that contains the exact change log
Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154

10
entries copied from the change log to comprise the exact copy of the change
log.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Shih discloses
“synchronously copying the information about the transaction in the
transaction log to a mirrored transaction log, so as to create at the replicate
database an exact copy of the transaction log” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for claims 2-8, 10-23, 25-32,
and 34-43 from those of claim 1. Accordingly, we also find that the
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-8,
10-23, 25-32, and 34-43 falling with claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

Claims 9, 24, and 33
As to claims 9, 24, and 33, Appellants repeat that “Shih does not teach
or suggest Appellant[s’] claim limitations that require the creation of an
exact copy or mirror image of the transaction log at the replicate database”
(Br. 13), and thus, “[m]erely strapping [Riedel’s] file block replication onto
Shih’s system does not reproduce Appellant[s’] claimed approach” (Br. 14).
Further, Appellants contend that “[n]either Shih nor Riedel provides any
teaching, suggestion, or other motivation” to “incorporate the file block
replication combination with Riedel” (Id.).
Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154

11
However, the Examiner concludes that, though Shih “does not
explicitly teach: ‘said synchronous copying step includes replicating at a file
block level,” Riedel discusses “the advantage of replicating at file block
level versus file level” (Ans. 12). As set forth in the Examiner’s conclusion,
it would have been obvious to combine the references as suggested by
Riedel because “a successful system for global data placement should
operate at the lowest-level of these interfaces in order to provide the
maximum compatibility with existing applications” (Ans. 8).
We agree with the Examiner. As discussed above, we find no
deficiency regarding the teachings of Shih. Further, we conclude that the
substitution of one known element (replicating at file block level versus file
level as taught by Riedel) for another (the replication of Shih) would have
yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. That is, we find that providing replication at a file block level as
taught by Riedel to the replication of Shih is no more than a simple
arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such
an arrangement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Appellants have presented no
evidence that using Riedel’s replication at a file block level to the replication
of Shih was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog, 485
F.3d at 1162 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154

12
Thus, Appellants have neither shown that the Examiner failed to make
a prima facie case of obviousness, nor have they persuasively rebutted the
Examiner’s prima facie case. Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 24, and 33 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
claims 1-8, 10-23, 25-32, and 34-43 are anticipated by the teachings of Shih.
(2) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
claims 9, 24, and 33 are unpatentable over the teachings of Shih and Riedel.
(3) Claims 1-32 are not patentable over the prior art of record.

VII. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-23, 25-32,
and 34-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 9, 24, and 33 under
§ 103(a).
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

Appeal 2009-004040
Application 10/605,154

13

peb

JOHN A. SMART
201 LOS GATOS
SARATOGA RD, #161
LOS GATOS, CA 95030-5308