Ex Parte Bourbonnais et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 20, 2016

12986049 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/986,049 01/06/2011 63675 7590 04/22/2016 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL 24 Greenway Plaza SUITE 1600 HOUSTON, TX 77046-2472 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Serge Bourbonnais 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. SVL920100048US2 5585 EXAMINER HOLLAND, SHERYLL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2161 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/22/2016 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): P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SERGE BOURBONNAIS, SOMIL KULKARNI, and YAT 0. LAU Appeal2014-004135 Application 12/986,049 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 8-10, 12-17, and 19-22, all the pending claims in the present application. Claims 1-7, 11, and 18 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to techniques for initializing a connection in a peer-to-peer database replication environment. See Abstract. Appeal2014-004135 Application 12/986,049 Claim 8 is illustrative: 8. A computer program product for initializing a connection in a peer-to-peer replication environment, comprising: a computer-readable storage memory having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the computer readable program code comprising: computer readable program code to, responsive to a request to add a target node to a data replication group, receive a first message, at the target node, from an initiator node within the data replication group, indicating that the initiator node will begin replicating changes to the target node without waiting for any acknowledgements relating to the first message, wherein the changes are applied to a first instance of a data entity on the initiator node; computer readable program code to, upon receiving the first message indicating that the initiator node will begin replicating changes, transmit a second message from the target node to at least one other member in the data replication group, announcing that the target node is joining the data replication group; computer readable program code to receive a plurality of replicated changes, at the target node, from at least one member of the data replication group; computer readable program code to determine whether the target node contains a base copy of the data entity, which if updated by application of the plurality of replicated changes would be synchronized with the first instance of the data entity on the initiator node; computer readable program code to, upon determining the target node does not contain the base copy of the data entity, perform one or more load operations to create a second instance of the data entity on the target node; and computer readable program code to, upon performing the one or more load operations, process each received replicated change in the plurality of replicated changes against the second instance of the data entity. Appellants appeal the following rejections: RI. Claims 8-10, 12-14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 because the claims encompass non-statutory subject matter (Final Act. 3); 2 Appeal2014-004135 Application 12/986,049 R2. Claims 8-10, 12-17, and 19-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 5-7 of copending Application No. 13/553,372 in view of 12/986,049 (Final Act 5); and R3. Claim 8-10, 12-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beyer (US 2005/0193024 Al, Sept. 1, 2005) and Adiba (US 2005/0193037 Al, Sept. 1, 2005) (Final Act. 14). RELATED DECISION Appeal No. 2014-003733 (Application No. 13/553,372), mailed April 20, 2016 (Examiner Affirmed). The Examiner and Appellants direct our attention to essentially the same or similar evidence relied upon in the above-noted related case. Therefore, we adopt and incorporate herein by reference the Board's related decision to the extent it applies to the similar arguments and evidence made herein. ANALYSIS Re} ection under 3 5 U.S. C. Â§ 101 & Double Patenting Rejection At the outset, we observe that Appellants present no arguments on appeal regarding the (1) Examiner's rejection of claims 8-10, 12-17, and 19-21under35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 (see Final Act. 3) nor the (2) Examiner's provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 8-10, 12-17, and 19-21 (see Final Act. 5). We note that arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal2014-004135 Application 12/986,049 Therefore, we proforma affirm both the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 and the provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 8-10, 12-17, and 19-21. Rejection underÂ§ 103(a) of Claims 8-10, 12-17, and 19-21 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of Beyer and Adiba, particularly Adiba, teach or suggest receiving a first message indicating that the initiator node will begin replicating changes to the target node without waiting for any acknowledgement relating to the first message, as set forth in claim 8? We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to the Appellants' arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of the references, particularly Adiba, teaches or suggests the aforementioned limitation. As identified by Appellants, Adiba is not the same as the claimed invention because it discloses "a replication procedure in which replication begins only after acknowledgement messages are received from all active members of a replication group ... [instead of] without waiting for any acknowledgements relating to the first message" (App. Br. 14). As an initial matter, we find that the Examiner's proffered P2PNEW2MEMB signal is not equivalent to the claimed "first message" (see Ans. 22), instead, we find that the claimed first message reads on Adiba 's P2PJOINUS message. For example, we agree with Appellants that Adiba 's "P2PNEW2MEMB signal is not a message that is received ... from an initiator node ... rather the P2PNEW2MEMB signal is a status indicator 4 Appeal2014-004135 Application 12/986,049 that is inserted into a table at the new member, responsive to receiving a 'P2PJOINUS message'" (see Reply Br. 2; see also Adiba i-f 76). Adiba 's P2PJOINUS message equates to the claimed first message because the Adiba 's initiator 201 sends the P2PJOINUS message to the new member 208 indicating initialization into the replication group (Adiba i-f 7 6; see also Fig. 7). On the other hand, the Examiner's proffered P2PNEW2MEMB signal is not received from the initiator, but instead the new member 208 inserts the P2PNEW2MEMB signal into its own signal table 209 after it receives the P2PJOINUS message (id.). Having established that Adiba 's P2PJOINUS message teaches receiving a first message at the target node, we next tum to whether Adiba teaches that the message indicates that the initiator will begin replicating changes without waiting for any acknowledgements relating to the first message. Appellants contend that in Adiba "the new node contacts each of the active nodes in the list and waits for an acknowledgement from each of the active nodes before data replication begins" (App. Br. 14). We agree with Appellants. Specifically, Adiba waits for acknowledgements before replicating changes to the new node (see Adiba i-fi-178-81; see also Fig. 7). For example, Adiba discloses that "[t]he return of the SCHEMA message to the new member 208 is an acknowledgement to the new member 208 that an active member has received the subscription information for the new member 208" (i-f 78), "[ w ]hen all bits have been toggled, all acknowledgements have been received by the initiator 201" (i-f 79), "and normal data replication protocol is performed from that point forward, via step 726" (i-f 81 ). Thus, we agree with Appellants that "[i]n the context of 5 Appeal2014-004135 Application 12/986,049 Figure 7 [of Adiba], while the P2PNEW2ivIEivIB signal is inserted in block 705, data replication does not begin until block 726 of Figure 7 (con't), with numerous messages and loading operations being performed in between" (Reply Br. 4). Therefore, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Adiba teaches that "Replication begins at the target node when the node inserts the P2PNEWMEMB data, without waiting for an acknowledgement of the P2PNEWMEMB message [and] [t]he P2PNEWMEMB message is the 'first message"' (Ans. 22). We emphasize that the Examiner has not directed our attention to any evidence in Adiba that replication begins when P2PNEWMEMB data is inserted into the table of the target node. The Examiner also has not found any of the other references of record teach this feature. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 8-10, 12-17, and 19-22. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8-10, 12-17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 because the claims encompass non-statutory subject matter is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to provisionally reject claims 8-10, 12- 17, and 19-22 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8-10, 12-17, and 19-22 underÂ§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beyer andAdiba is reversed. 6 Appeal2014-004135 Application 12/986,049 Since at least one rejection encompassing all claims on appeal is affirmed, the decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7