Ex Parte Cain et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 6, 2016

13435281 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/435,281 03/30/2012
47049 7590 05/06/2016
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harold Wade Cain III
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.
YOR920120033US 1
(590.261)
CONFIRMATION NO.
1394
EXAMINER
OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAROLD WADE CAIN III, DONNAN. DILLENBERGER,
MICHEL H.T. HACK, HONG MIN, GONG SU, and JAMES ZU-CHIA
TENG
Appeal 2014-007211 1
Application 13/435,281
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
JOh1~ R. KEi'l1~Y, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corp. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-007211
Application 13/435,281
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for managing requested
access to data objects in a database utilizing transactional memory. Spec.
i-f 1. In particular, a transactional tag (205-207) is utilized to annotate each
data object thereby indicating the accessibility status of requested data
objects in a database (201 ). Each transactional tag supports the operation of
a transactional memory (TM) process associated with a database transaction
based on the status of a data object being accessed. Id. i-f 23, Fig. 2.
T11 , ,• r--,1 • 1uusrranve ctazm
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A system comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory device operatively connected to the at least one processor;
wherein, responsive to execution of program instructions accessible to
the at least one processor, the at least one processor is configured to:
annotate at least one data object utilizing at least one transactional tag,
the at least one transactional tag being configured to indicate a status
of the at least one data object;
2
Appeal 2014-007211
Application 13/435,281
the at least one transactional tag further being associated with one or
more data structures configured to support operation of a transactional
memory process;
process at least one database transaction utilizing a transactional
memory process, wherein access to the at least one data object is
determined based on the status of the at least one data object; and
update the status of the at least one data object responsive to an
attempted access of the at least one data object by the at least one
database transaction.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Khalidi us 5,764,897 June 09, 1998
Kumar et al. US 2006/0085591 Al Apr. 20, 2006
Gaither et al. US 2008/0104332 Al May 01, 2008
Taillefer US 2009/0006406 Al Jan.01,2009
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Khalidi, Kumar, and Gaither.
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Khalidi, Kumar, Gaither, and
Taillefer.
3
Appeal 2014-007211
Application 13/435,281
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
nonstatutory subject matter. 2
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 15-20, and the Reply Brief, page 2. 3
Appellants argue the combination of Khalidi, Kumar, and Gaither
does not teach or suggest a transactional tag associated with a data structure
supporting the operation of a transactional memory process, wherein the
2 Because the Examiner did not withdraw the non-statutory subject
matter rejection maintained in the Final Action, we consider this ground of
rejection as being on appeal before us. Fin. i~\1ct. 2-3. Therefore, \x1e sustain
this rejection summarily in light of Appellants' failure to challenge the
rejection in this appeal. We nonetheless echo the Examiner's conclusion
that claim 20 recites a "computer-readable storage medium," which
implicates both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. Id. Because
Appellants' Specification does not define "computer-readable storage
device" to exclude transitory media, the "computer-readable storage device"
encompasses transitory media, which is not patent eligible. Ex parte
Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential).
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Feb. 18, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed June
10, 2014), and the Answer (mailed Apr. 10, 2014) for the respective details.
We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
4
Appeal 2014-007211
Application 13/435,281
transactional tag is utilized to annotate the data object thereby indicating the
status of the data object. App. Br. 15-20. In particular, Appellants argue
Khalidi relates to, at best, "transaction" or "tagging" in a generic sense, but
not to "transactional tagging", as claimed. App. Br. 16, 18 (citing Khalidi
3:66-67, 8:5-15). Further, Appellants argue because Kumar's disclosure of
a transactional memory "represents little more than a conventional
arrangement involving TM that itself is likely to present problems", it does
not cure the noted deficiencies ofKhalidi. Id. at 18 (citing Kumar i-f 30).
Likewise, Appellants argue because Gaither' s disclosure of a "transaction
identifier (ID) vector" discloses "conventional aspects of transactional
memory" it does not cure the noted deficiencies of Khalidi. Id. at 18-19
(citing Gaither i-f 34). These arguments are not persuasive.
At the outset, we note although Appellants' Specification does not
expressly define "transactional tag," the Specification indicates that "[ e Jach
tag may be associated with a state configured to indicate the accessibility of
an associated object(s) and one or more data structures 208, 209 configured
to support operation of the TM system utilizing the transactional tags
205-207." Spec. i-f 23. That is, within the context of Appellants'
Specification, "transactional tag" refers to a tag for annotating a requested
data object to thereby indicate the accessibility status of the data object.
As correctly noted by Appellants, Khalidi discloses a transaction
manager (TM) assigning a transaction identification (TID) value to a
transaction associated with a requested object. Khalidi 4:25-27, 8:6-16.
5
Appeal 2014-007211
Application 13/435,281
Further, Kumar discloses a hybrid hardware/software implementation of
transactional memory accesses of objects in a database, wherein each object
is identified by a locator thereby identifying shared objects that are opened,
and accessible. Kumar Abstr., i-f 37. Additionally, Gaither discloses a
transactional memory having data structures including a transaction
identifier vector containing a plurality of transaction ID bits, each bit
indicating whether an identified transaction associated therewith is currently
active. Gaither i-f 34. We agree with the Examiner that Gaither's teaching of
determining whether an identified transaction is active would complement
the Khalidi-Kumar's combination to predictably result in a transactional
memory containing a plurality of transactional tags supporting a TM,
wherein each transactional tag indicates the current accessibility status of a
requested object (i.e., whether a transaction associated with a data object is
active and open for access). Ans. 3--4. We note although Appellants makes
nominal references to the teachings of Kumar and Gaither, as noted above,
Appellants do not explain how, for instance, Gaither's transaction ID bits are
different from the transactional tags. Accordingly, Appellants have not
shown error in the Examiner's finding that the combination of Khalidi,
Kumar, and Gaither teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1.
Likewise, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of
claims 2-19, not separately argued.
6
Appeal 2014-007211
Application 13/435,281
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's nonstatutory subject matter rejection of
claim 20. We likewise affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
claims 1-2 0.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7