Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 17, 2020

2020002897 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/374,722 12/09/2016 Wilson Cheng-Yi Hsieh GOOGLE 3.0F-2068 7576
78792 7590 08/17/2020
GOOGLE
Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP
20 Commerce Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MINH CHAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2020 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):
eOfficeAction@lernerdavid.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILSON CHENG-YI HSIEH and PETER HOCHSCHILD
____________________

Appeal 2020-002897
Application 15/374,722
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2019). According to Appellant, Google LLC is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002897
Application 15/374,722

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for use in a distributed database
system in which, while the written data is being committed to the memory,
the lock on the server is released and a commit wait time is imposed on the
other servers or clients. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention
and is reproduced below.
1. A system, comprising:
a server device, the server device including at least one
input/output to communicate with other servers and clients
in a distributed computing environment, the server device
comprising:
one or more processors, and
one or more memories storing instructions to be executed
by the one or more processors to:
receive a request to write data;
write the data to a memory in the distributed
computing environment;
while the written data is being committed to the
memory, release a lock on the server; and
while the written data is being committed to the
memory, impose a commit wait time for the written
data on at least one of a client library, the other
servers, or the clients, wherein the commit wait time
is an interval of time that must pass before the at least
one of the client library, the other servers, or the
clients can see the effects of the written data.

EXAMINER’S REJECTION2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 15,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed March 9, 2020 (Reply Br.); Final
Office Action mailed March 6, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed January 9, 2020 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-002897
Application 15/374,722

3
as being unpatentable over Veach (WO 2013/184712; Dec. 12, 2012) and
Chandler (US 7,822,728 B1; Oct. 26, 2010). Final Act. 4–10.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of all of the disputed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant presents several arguments with respect to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, based on Veach and Chandler,
on pages 3 through 6 of the Appeal Brief, and pages 3 through 5 of the
Reply Brief. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments, is whether
the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Veach and Chandler
teaches while the written data is being committed to memory, imposing a
commit wait time for the written data as recited in independent claim 1.
With respect to this disputed limitation, the Examiner cites to
Chandler’s method of pipelining metadata such that some metadata commit
sequences take longer than others as teaching the claimed commit wait time
for the written data. Ans. 4–5 (citing Chandler, Fig.7, col. 1. ll. 54–56, col. 7
ll. 25–48, col. 8, ll. 25–36, ll. 55-col. 9, ll. 11, col. 10, ll. 7–11).
We have reviewed the cited teachings of Chandler and disagree with
the Examiner that the reference teaches the disputed limitation. Claim 1
recites “impose a commit wait time for the written data on at least one of a
client library, the other servers, or the clients, wherein the commit wait time
is an interval of time that must pass before the at least one of the client
library, the other servers, or the clients can see the effects of the written
Appeal 2020-002897
Application 15/374,722

4
data.” Appellant’s Specification identifies this is an interval of time,
imposed on the various devices, which they must wait to pass before the
effects of the data transaction in memory are seen. Specification ¶ 3.
Although the metadata commit sequences shown in Figure 7, and described
in the paragraphs of Chandler cited by the Examiner, may result in some
sequences taking longer than others; we do not find that Chandler teaches a
time interval is imposed on the devices as claimed. The differences between
some metadata commit sequences is the byproduct of a pipeline, and is not
because of an imposed commit wait time (imposed time interval).
As such we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,
and dependent claims 2 through 11.

With respect to independent claim 12, Appellant argues the
combination of Veach and Chandler does not teach “releasing, by the first
computing device, the write lock without waiting for a commit wait time for
the write to expire, such that the commit wait time is imposed on at least one
of a client library, other servers, or the clients, wherein the commit wait time
is an interval of time that must pass before the at least one of the client
library, the other servers, or the clients can see the effects of the write” as
recited in claim 12. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 6. Appellant asserts that for the
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, Chandler does not teach imposing
a commit wait time. Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s arguments, cites to the same
teachings discussed above to support the finding that Chandler teaches the
claimed commit wait time. Ans. 6–7.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-002897
Application 15/374,722

5
rejection of claim 12. The scope of claim 12 differs from claim 1, however
claim 12 similarly recites a commit wait time is imposed on at least one of a
client library, other servers, or the clients. As discussed above with respect
to claim 1, we do not find the teachings cited by the Examiner support a
finding that Chandler teaches this limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12 or dependent claims 13
through 20.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Veach, Chandler 1–20

REVERSED