Hareesh Kadlabalu

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2021

2019006560 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2021)

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.
13/488,184 06/04/2012 Hareesh S. Kadlabalu ORA120294USNP-403222-0056 3359
58019 7590 04/22/2021
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn - Oracle
3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower
111 SW Fifth Avenue
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
WESTBROOK, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2139
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2021 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@appcoll.com
patdocketing@millernash.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAREESH S. KADLABALU

Appeal 2019-006560
Application 13/488,184
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11–14, and 16, which are all
claims pending in the application. Claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 15, and 17 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oracle International
Corporation. See Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006560
Application 13/488,184

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claimed subject matter relates to a content management system
that has:
at least two content server computers, a cache memory
corresponding to each content server, the cache memory having
a page cache to store cache objects for pages displayed by the
content server, a dependency cache to store dependency
information for the cache objects, and a notifier cache to
replicate changes in dependency information to other caches.
Abstract.
Representative Independent Claim 1
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A content management system, comprising:

at least two content server computers;

at least one satellite server, the satellite server having a
local cache;

a content server cache corresponding to each content
server, at least the content server cache and the local cache of the
satellite server organized as a cluster and double buffered such
that the content server cache and the local cache of the satellite
server are in tandem, each cache comprising cache partitions
separated from each other, the partitions comprising:

2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 5,
2018; the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed March 21, 2019);
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 29, 2019). No Reply Brief
was filed.
Appeal 2019-006560
Application 13/488,184

3
an object cache to store pages displayed by the content
server, wherein the pages are populated by assets as cache
objects and the assets have attributes;

a dependency cache to store dependency information for
the cache objects, the dependency information including an
identifier of each asset including whether the identifier is invalid,
wherein the identifier includes versions with version numbers
assigned at the time of creation of the version in the dependency
cache, the dependency cache includes a dependency generation
counter to increment the version numbers for each identifier
when any identifier is marked as invalid; and

a notifier cache to replicate changes in dependency
information to other caches, the notifier cache sending an
indication of the identifier of an asset that has been changed,

wherein the cache having invalid objects removes invalid
objects and web pages from the object cache only upon request
for the web pages and the identifier of an asset is invalidated
when an attribute for that asset changes, the notifier cache to
regenerate the web pages and propagate the regenerated web
pages to other caches upon the request for the web pages.

Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added regarding disputed
limitations).
EVIDENCE

Name Reference Date
Jacobs et al. (“Jacobs”) US 6,934,720 B1 Aug. 23, 2005
Singhal et al. (“Singhal”) US 7,096,418 B1 Aug. 22, 2006
Patel et al. (“Patel”) US 2008/0313545 A1 Dec. 18, 2008
Rajkumar et al. (“Rajkumar”) US 2012/0303765 A1 Nov. 29, 2012
Rossbach et al. (“Rossbach”) US 2012/0324472 A1 Dec. 20, 2012
Appeal 2019-006560
Application 13/488,184

4
REJECTION
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis
1, 5, 6, 9, 11–14, 16 103(a) Singhal, Jacobs, Rajkumar,
Rossbach, Patel

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are
forfeited.3 See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Throughout this opinion,
we give the claim limitations the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)
consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997).

3 See In re Google Technology Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (some internal citation omitted):
It is well established that “[w]aiver is different from forfeiture.”
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993). “Whereas
forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right,
waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a
known right.’” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464
(1938)) (additional citations omitted). The two scenarios can
have different consequences for challenges raised on appeal, id.
at 733–34, and for that reason, it is worth attending to which label
is the right one in a particular case.
Appeal 2019-006560
Application 13/488,184

5
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we focus our analysis on the
following argued limitations regarding the rejection of representative
independent claim 1:

Issue 1: Did the Examiner err by finding that Singhal, Jacobs,
Rajkumar, Rossbach, and Patel collectively, teach or suggest the limitations:
increment the version numbers for each identifier when any
identifier is marked as invalid; and . . .

propagate the regenerated web pages to other caches
upon the request for the web pages[,]
within the meaning of independent claim 1? 4 (emphasis added).

Regarding the “increment” function of claim 1, Appellant contends
Rossbach “teaches incrementing the version number of the versioned data
object once the new versioned data object is stored.” Appeal Br. 11 (citing
Rossbach ¶ 43). Appellant thus asserts that “Rossbach does not teach or
suggest incrementing a version counter for an identifier when any identifier
is marked as invalid, as recited in claim 1. Rather, the data is only versioned
when new data is present and written over the previous data.” Appeal Br. 11
(emphasis omitted).
Regarding the “increment” function of claim 1, we find a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that this
limitation is taught or suggested by Rossbach’s description of the

4 See Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054.
Appeal 2019-006560
Application 13/488,184

6
overwriting “the corresponding versioned data object in [the] storage node
with the versioned data object in the write set while incrementing
accordingly the version indicator (or version number) for that versioned data
object in the storage node.” Rossbach ¶ 43 (emphasis added).
Moreover, on this record, Appellant has not persuasively traversed the
Examiner’s findings and further explanations in the Answer that the prior
art, particularly Rossbach, teaches “associating version numbers with
cache/data objects. The version numbers are incremented when the
corresponding data object is updated (i.e. invalidated).” Ans. 8–9 (emphasis
added).
We note the Examiner specifically relies upon paragraphs 40, 41, and
43 of Rossbach as evidence in support of the rejection. See Ans. 8. We
agree with the Examiner that updating or overwriting a versioned data
object, according to one described embodiment, irrevocably commits and
thus effectively invalidates the old versioned data object.5 See Rossbach
¶ 43. Appellant has not further addressed the Examiner’s specific findings
and explanations in the Answer by filing a Reply Brief in response.
Similarly, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s findings regarding the disputed claim 1 limitation of “propagate

5 Our reviewing court guides: “‘the question under 35 USC 103 is not
merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made.’” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis
added); see also MPEP § 2123.

Appeal 2019-006560
Application 13/488,184

7
the regenerated web pages to other caches upon the request for the web
pages.” (emphasis added).
In the Final Action, the Examiner relies upon Rajkumar, at Figure 2,
blocks 210–230, and paragraphs 8 and 65, for teaching or suggesting the
“propagate” limitation. See Final Act. 8–9.
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings regarding the “propagate”
limitation of claim 1, and specifically argues that “[n]one of Singhal, Jacobs,
Rossbach, nor Patel teach or suggest propagating the regenerated web pages
to other caches upon the request for the webpages, nor does the Office
Action rely on them to do so.” Appeal Br. 9 (some emphasis omitted).
In the Answer, the Examiner agrees with Appellant, but notes that
Rajkumar was relied upon to teach the limitation L1: “the notifier cache to
regenerate the web pages and propagate the regenerated web pages to other
caches upon the request for the web pages.” Ans. 3 (emphasis added).
However, Appellant also traverses Rajkumar in the Appeal Brief:
Rajkumar, however, teaches generated or assembled full HTML
pages are cached at web server 110 for delivery to end users.
Paragraphs [0064] and [0065]. However, nothing in Rajkumar
teaches regenerating webpages and propagating the regenerated
webpages upon request for the webpage. That is, in Rajkumar,
the webpages are automatically generated and cached at web
server 110 for delivery to end users. While the Office Action may
allege that Rajkumar does so upon a request, such is not taught
in Rajkumar. Office Action, page 9.
Rather, Rajkumar teaches that at step 210, a set of pages
may be generated based on content information published. These
pages are then utilized in responding to requests at step 220. If
any content is detected as changed in 230, then a webpage may
be generated. Paragraph [0036]. Rather than the regeneration
being caused by the request, the regeneration of the webpage is
Appeal 2019-006560
Application 13/488,184

8
caused automatically when content has changed in step 230.
Rajkumar, paragraph [0036]; see also, e.g. Claim 1.
Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner responds in the Answer:
See Figure 2, blocks 210-230. See [0064] “The generated
or assembled full HTML pages may then be pushed to the web
tier (e.g., cached at web server 110) for delivery to end users.”
[0065] “Upon receiving notification of the change and based on
its knowledge of the page dependencies, content generation
system 120 correspondingly and dynamically re-generates page
600 with updated content and, where applicable, any and all
pages that are affected by the change. The dynamically
regenerated page(s) can then be pushed to the web tier for
delivery to end users as described above[.]” See Figure 2, in
which upon request for a page, if content change is detected, then
the page is regenerated.
Ans. 10–11.
We have reviewed Figure 2, blocks 210–230 and paragraphs 64 and
65 and find that Rajkumar’s Figure 2 block 220 (labeled “Respond to
Request(s) 220”) (emphasis added) teaches or suggests the argued “request
for the web pages.” Claim 1. Buttressing the Examiner’s findings are
multiple teachings of user requests for content, as described in Rajkumar at
paragraphs 34 and 35. See, e.g. paragraph 34: “client devices 100 may be
utilized by an end user to communicate a request for content provided by a
web site over network 130.” (emphasis added).

Appeal 2019-006560
Application 13/488,184

9
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by relying upon impermissible
hindsight in combining the Singhal, Jacobs, Rajkumar, Rossbach, and Patel
references?
Appellant urges that the Examiner has impermissibly relied upon
“information gleaned solely from Applicant’s specification.” Appeal Br. 13.
Although we are fully aware that hindsight bias often plagues
determinations of obviousness, Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
(383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966)), we are also mindful that the Supreme Court has
held that a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007).
In reviewing the record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
because Appellant does not point to any evidence of record that shows
combining the teachings of the cited references in the manner found by the
Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art” or would have “represented an unobvious step over
the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Appellant has not identified any knowledge gleaned only from the
present application that was not within the level of ordinary skill at the time
the claimed invention was made. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392,
1395 (CCPA 1971). Moreover, Appellant has not provided any objective
evidence of secondary considerations (e.g., long-felt but unmet need,
commercial success, or unexpected results), which our reviewing court
guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v.
Appeal 2019-006560
Application 13/488,184

10
Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed.
Cir. 2013).
Therefore, on this record, we find the Examiner (Final Action 9,
11–12) has provided a sufficient “rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s underlying
factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding the
rejection of independent representative claim 1.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent representative claim 1 over
the collective teachings and suggestions of Singhal, Jacobs, Rajkumar,
Rossbach, and Patel. Remaining grouped claims 5, 6, 9, 11–14, and 16 (not
separately argued) fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Examiner did not err
with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11–14, and 16
over the cited combination of Singhal, Jacobs, Rajkumar, Rossbach, and
Patel.

Appeal 2019-006560
Application 13/488,184

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, 9,
11–14, 16 103(a)
Singhal, Jacobs,
Rajkumar,
Rossbach, Patel
1, 5, 6, 9,
11–14, 16

FINALITY AND RESPONSE
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED