Ex Parte Zimowski

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2009

10102385 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MELVIN RICHARD ZIMOWSKI
____________

Appeal 2008-3869
Application 10/102,385
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided:1 March 27, 2009
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-3869
Application 10/102,385

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-24 and 26-36, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellant claims a method, system, and program product for
migrating large volumes of data from a data source to a data target. Batch
processes operate in parallel to unload data from the data source and upload
the data into the target, and load the data into a database at the data target.
(See Abstract.)

Representative Claim
1. A method of migrating data from a table in a source system to a
table in a target system comprising:
a. initiating a first batch process and a second batch process,
which execute in parallel,
b. the first batch process unloading the data from the source
system and uploading the data into the target system, and
c. the second batch process loading the data into the table in the
target system, wherein the first batch process sends the data to the second
batch process via a pipe.

Appeal 2008-3869
Application 10/102,385

3
Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability.
Pastilha 5,678,044 Oct. 14, 1997
Martin 6,035,307 Mar. 7, 2000
Hejlsberg 6,151,602 Nov. 21, 2000

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-22, 24, and 26-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martin and Hejlsberg.
Claims 6, 12, 23, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Martin, Hejlsberg, and Pastilha.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

FINDINGS OF FACT
Martin describes an Enterprise Data Movement (EDM) system for
performing data move operations. Preferably, the operations of an existing
database utility, which is already required to be performed, are used for the
data moves. The data moves thus operate in an opportunistic or “parasitic”
fashion. Martin Abstract.
Martin depicts the functional components of the system in the high-
level block diagram of Figure 2. Source data from database or memory
Appeal 2008-3869
Application 10/102,385

4
104A is moved to a target database or memory 104B. Martin col. 8, ll. 41-
53.
In a bulk data transfer, the Extract block 202 (Fig. 2) represents an
unload operation that involves extracting the entire set of data to be moved.
After the extract step, the extracted data is provided to Transform functional
block 204, for transformation of the data in the event that the target database
stores data in a different format. The Move function block 206 operates to
move the extracted data to the target database 104B. Martin col. 8, l. 54 -
col. 9, l. 12.
After execution of the Move function block 206 (Fig. 2) to physically
move the data, the Load block 208 operates to load the data on to the target
database 104B. Martin col. 9, ll. 13-15.
Martin also teaches, as depicted in Figure 11, the advantages of using
“data pipes.” As shown in the “Prior Art” portion of the figure, each step in
a bulk data moves required read and write operations to storage media.
Martin col. 15, l. 35 - col. 16, l. 4.
Martin teaches that, in a new scheme, the bulk data move operation
essentially comprises a one step process that can include a snapshot unload
or read operation, a transform operation, and a transport operation. The
transformed data is transported to the load utility, which then operates to
write the data to the target data base 104B. Martin col. 16, ll. 5-9. In
accordance with the invention, the bulk data move operation preferably uses
the utilities when they are already being performed for other purposes. Id. at
ll. 10-19.
Appeal 2008-3869
Application 10/102,385

5
Martin adds that, in the preferred embodiment, one or more data pipes
are configured, wherein each “pipe” represents a collection of one or more
of unload, transform, move, and load processes for moving data. Martin col.
16, ll. 20-23.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A person having ordinary skill in the art uses known elements for their
intended purpose. Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.,
396 U.S. 57 (1969) (radiant-heat burner used for its intended purpose in
combination with a spreader and a tamper and screed).
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing
the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than
one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting
Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).

ANALYSIS
Appellant acknowledges that Martin teaches all that instant claim 1
requires, except for the feature that the (first) batch process that unloads the
data from the source system and uploads the data to the target system
executes “in parallel” with the (second) batch process that loads the data into
the table in the target system. Appellant’s arguments focus on the use of
Hejlsberg’s teachings to remedy the supposed deficiency in Martin.
Appeal 2008-3869
Application 10/102,385

6
However, the Specification indicates that “in parallel” is effected by
eliminating the use of intermediate data files between the two batch
processes.
The unload of a particular database table at the source
and the subsequent load of the database table at the target
execute in parallel. The method, system, and program product
allow for the parallel unload and load of the database table by
eliminating the use of intermediate data files between the two
batch processes. Data flows directly from the unload batch
process to the load batch process, thereby reducing both the
elapsed time and the complexity of the data migration.

(Spec. 2:23-28; emphasis added.)
The Specification also indicates that the use of a “data pipe”
eliminates the need for intermediate writes to disk during the data move,
supporting the “parallel” batch processes.
Through the use of a data pipe between the parallel batch
processes for (1) unloading the source data and (2) loading the
target data, the data being migrated never needs an intermediate
write to disk on the target, thereby reducing both the elapsed
time and the complexity of the data migration.

(Spec. 4:13-16.)
“To be noted is that the first, 21 [Fig. 3], and second, 23, batch jobs
execute in parallel. The use of batch pipes, 39, permits (i) upload of data
from the source system, 1, and (ii) loading of data into the target system, 3,
to be substantially simultaneous.” (Spec. 6:25-27; emphasis added.)
In light of Appellants’ teachings in the Specification, executing batch
processes “in parallel” does not require the physical impossibility that a
particular element of the data move (i.e., a datum) is simultaneously
Appeal 2008-3869
Application 10/102,385

7
unloaded from the source system, uploaded into the target system, and
loaded into the table in the target system. The “in parallel” language of
claim 1 requires, at most, that the second batch process operates while the
first batch process operates.
Martin shows a one-step process for a bulk data move in Figure 11,
using data pipes. The unloading (read) of the data from the source database
DB2 and the uploading of the data to the target system (transport) are part of
the same (first) batch process. Figure 11 does not necessarily show that the
second batch process (loading the data into the “Informix” database) is
substantially simultaneous with the first batch process, or executes “in
parallel” with the first process. The reference contemplates that the target
database may be remote, such as a destination over the Internet (see, e.g.,
col. 9, ll. 6-12). Even though not explicit in Figure 11, we do not see why
the “Load Utility” (second batch process) would never operate at the same
time while the first batch process operates, even if the target database were
to reside on a remote network.
In any event, Martin expressly discloses that “one or more” data pipes
may be configured, where each “pipe” represents a collection of “one or
more” of “unload, transform, move and load processes for moving data.”
Martin col. 16, ll. 20-23; emphasis added.
Martin thus expressly teaches a scenario in which the unload, move,
and load processes operate in an essentially one step process that does not
require intermediate storage of data between the source and target databases.
The first and second batch processes thus “execute in parallel,” even in the
most restrictive reading of instant claim 1.
Appeal 2008-3869
Application 10/102,385

8
We need not determine whether Martin would support a finding of
anticipation of the subject matter of claim 1, as the rejection before us is for
obviousness under § 103(a). Martin teaches, or at least suggests, the
invention of claim 1, in the description of the data move operation and the
language we have reproduced from column 16 of the reference. Moreover,
Martin teaches the advantages of using data pipes in the bulk move of data,
in Figure 11 and at column 15, line 55 through column 16, line 23, which
also supports a conclusion that the batch processes executing “in parallel”
represent subject matter that was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art. Appellant has not shown that executing batch processes “in
parallel” in accordance with claim 1 would yield anything unexpected or
surprising to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant also seems to argue that the “parasitic” nature of the data
moves described by Martin is inconsistent with the claimed invention. Even
if we were to assume that “parasitic” data moves are inconsistent with claim
1, however, Martin teaches that using the required utilities in an
opportunistic or “parasitic” fashion is a preferred, but not the only,
embodiment of the described invention. Martin teaches, for example, that a
user can configure and perform a bulk move operation using a graphical user
interface. Martin, col. 15, ll. 23-34. A bulk data move profile can be saved
and later executed in a “parasitic” fashion, but can also be executed
immediately. See Martin, col. 12, ll. 6-47; Fig. 5.
Because Martin teaches or at least suggests all that is required by
instant claim 1, we do not reach consideration of the supposed deficiencies
in the combination of Martin and Hejlsberg.
Appeal 2008-3869
Application 10/102,385

9
We sustain the rejection of claim 1. As the rejection of the claims
over Martin, Hejlsberg, and Pastilha is not separately argued, claims 2-24
and 26-36 fall with claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-24 and 26-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

msc

SUGHRUE MION PLLC
USPTO CUSTOMER NO WITH IBM/SVL
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON DC 20037