Li Li et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 31, 2019

13106751 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

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.
13/106,751 05/12/2011 Li Li CN920100026US1 5974
75949 7590 10/31/2019
IBM CORPORATION
C/O: Fabian Vancott
215 South State Street
Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
EXAMINER
SINGH, AMRESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2019 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):
patents@fabianvancott.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LI LI, JU WEI SHI, RUI XIONG TIAN, and YI XIN ZHAO
Appeal 2018-007915
Application 13/106,751
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 5–20. Claims 3 and 4 have
been cancelled. 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). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007915
Application 13/106,751

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to garbage collection in an in-memory
replication system. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with the
disputed limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of garbage collection in a first node server of an
in-memory replication system, comprising:
in response to a garbage collection trigger in said first node
server, determining whether identification information for a
replicated data object eligible for garbage collection in said first
node server has been received by said first node server from at
least a second node server in said in-memory replication system,
wherein the identification information comprises an address to
the replicated data object stored in the first node server and
copied from a source data object saved in the second node server;
and
determining that said identification information has been
received from at least said second node server and performing
garbage collection on said data object with said first node server
without a mark operation having been performed on the
replicated data object in said first node server;
determining that said identification information for data
objects eligible for garbage collection has not been received from
at least said second node server and identifying a data object
stored by said first node server that is eligible for garbage
collection with said first node server and performing garbage
collection on said data object identified with said first node
server; and
acquiring identification information for said data object
identified with said first node server and transmitting said
identification information to at least one other node server in said
in-memory replication system that stores said data object.
App. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2018-007915
Application 13/106,751

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Barsness
Oh
Bennett
US 2009/0112953 A1
US 2009/0119353 A1
US 2010/0325351 A1
Apr. 30, 2009
May 7, 2009
Dec. 23, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 10–16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barsness and Bennett. Final Act. 2–7.
Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Barsness, Bennett, and Oh. Final Act. 6, 7.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Bennett teaches or suggests
“performing garbage collection on said data object with said first node
server without a mark operation having been performed on the replicated
data object in said first node server,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Barsness teaches most
limitations, but does not teach “performing garbage collection on said data
object with said first node server without a mark operation having been
performed on the replicated data object in said first node server.” Final
Act. 4. The Examiner introduces Bennett, finding that it teaches performing
garbage collection without a mark operation. Final Act. 4 (citing Bennett
¶ 111, Figure 6). In so doing, the Examiner interprets the claim to allow a
marking operation to be performed, and only requires that a specific type of
marking operation not be performed. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2018-007915
Application 13/106,751

4
Appellant argues Bennett is deficient because “when Bennett
describes either deletion or reclamation of space, it is always referred to as
being part of a garbage collection that, to one of ordinary skill in the art per
Bennett and Appellant’s specification, would include a mark operation.”
App. Br. 13. Appellant further argues the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claim is flawed because the claimed recitation of “without a mark operation”
excludes any garbage collection operation that marks a replicated data
object. Reply Br. 5 (emphasis in original).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The limitation at issue
recites “performing garbage collection on said data object with said first
node server without a mark operation having been performed on the
replicated data object in said first node server.” The Examiner interprets this
limitation to encompass garbage collection with a mark operation, so long as
some type of mark operation is not performed. This interpretation is
unreasonably broad. Appellant’s Specification describes several instances
where garbage collection is performed based on identification information
received from other servers. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 27 (“garbage collection is
performed . . . on the data objects identified by the identification information
received from other node servers”), ¶ 36 (“the data objects that are
replications of the data objects that can be garbage-collected are garbage-
collected by using the identification information received from the other
node servers”). In each of these scenarios, there is no mark operation
performed on the data objects. The Specification also makes specific
reference to performing the garbage collection without a marking operation:
When garbage collection in the second, third, and fourth node
servers is triggered, these node servers determine that
identification information of data objects that can be garbage-
Appeal 2018-007915
Application 13/106,751

5
collected have been received from the first node server and
directly release the memory space of the memory addresses of
the data objects that can be garbage collected without performing
the mark operation of garbage collection for those memory
addresses. This saves computing resources and time overheads
of the mark operation and improves efficiency of garbage
collection in the in-memory replication system.
Spec. ¶ 41 (reference numbers omitted). At no point does the Specification
indicate that garbage collection is performed by using one type of mark
operation to the exclusion of another type. When understood in light of the
Specification, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation of
the disputed limitation is unreasonably broad. Accordingly, we conclude
that under its broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification,
“performing garbage collection on said data object with said first node
server without a mark operation having been performed on the replicated
data object in said first node server” requires that the garbage collection on
the data object be performed without any mark operation being performed
on the data object.
Applying this definition, we also agree with Appellant that Bennett
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. In particular, we agree
with Appellant that Bennett always marks data objects prior to performing
garbage collection on them. The cited portion of Bennett describes that
there are two different marking operations that may be used to indicate a
data block should be reclaimed—an X marking operation and an M marking
operation. The M marking operation is used to identify memory blocks
having a combination of live and dead pages. The X marking operation is
used to identify memory blocks in which all of the pages are dead. Bennett
¶¶ 110–111. Bennett teaches that garbage collection may be performed first
Appeal 2018-007915
Application 13/106,751

6
on the X marked blocks, and then, if necessary to reclaim additional
memory, on the M marked blocks after the live pages have been moved to
other blocks. Id. However, in no instance, does Bennett describe reclaiming
memory blocks that have not been marked with either an M or an X. Thus,
while Bennett teaches using two different types of mark operations in
connection with garbage collection, there is no teaching that garbage
collection occurs in the absence of any marking operation. Accordingly, we
agree with Appellant that Bennett fails to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or of independent
claims 10 and 19, which recite a similar limitation. For the same reasons we
also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2, 5–9, 11–18, and 20,
which stand therewith.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–7,
10–16, 19,
20
103(a) Barsness, Bennett 1, 2, 5–7,
10–16, 19,
20
8, 9, 17,
18
103(a) Barsness, Bennett, Oh 8, 9, 17,
18
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–20

REVERSED