Ex Parte Chandra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

13693393 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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.
13/693,393 12/04/2012 Venkat K. Chandra RSW920120082US1 (778) 3928
46320 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
ENNAJI, LAHCEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2017 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION1
Appeal 2016-008732
Application 13/693,3932
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL3
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10-27, which are all the claims pending in this
application.4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Venkat K. Chandra, Prasad G. Parulekar, Sunil Sarin, Krishnan
Seetharaman, David L. Shepard, and Lawrence Stabile are named inventors.
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is International Business
Machine Corporation. App. Br. 2.
3 This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2016008629, Application No.
14/058,267.
4 Claims 1-9 are canceled. App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x.).
Appeal 2016-008732
Application 13/693,393
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to replication control using eventually
consistent meta-data. Abstract. Claim 10 is illustrative of the appealed
subject matter and reads as follows:
10. A replicated data processing system configured for
replication control using eventually consistent meta-data, the
system comprising a plurality of replication nodes, each of which
comprising:
a host computing device with memory and at least one
processor;
a database of replicated data coupled to the host computing
device;
a replication flow machine executing in the memory of the
host computing device, the flow machine replicating the data in
the database responsive to data modifications in coupled nodes
of the replicated data processing system; and,
a replication controller configured for eventual
consistency, the controller comprising program code enabled
upon execution in the memory of the host computing device to
replicate state information for the replication data processing
system into a data structure of eventually consistent meta-data,
and to manage the replication flow machine according to the
replicated meta-data.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 10-13 and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Merriman et al. (US 2013/0290249 Al; Oct. 31, 2013)
and Norin et al. (US 5,787,247; July 28, 1998). Final Act. 3-6.
Claims 14, 15, 17, 23, 24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Merriman, Norin, and Bordawekar et al. (US
2005/0027542 Al; Feb. 3, 2005). Final Act. 6-8.
2
Appeal 2016-008732
Application 13/693,393
Claims 16 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Merriman, Norin, Bordawekar, and Kagalwala et al. (US
7,653,652 B2; Jan. 26, 2010). Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 18 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Merriman, Norin, Bordawekar, and Rath (US 8,719,225
Bl; May 6, 2014). Final Act. 9-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Merriman does not
teach or suggest “to replicate state information for the replication data
processing system into a data structure of eventually consistent meta-data,”
as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant argues Merriman
teaches managing distributed database systems utilizing eventually
consistent data architectures, but does not teach replicating state information
for a replication data processing system into a data structure of eventually
consistent meta-data. Id. Appellant also argues the Examiner erred because
Norin teaches replication of state information, but does not teach replicating
state information into a data structure of eventually consistent meta-data. Id.
at 6-8.
3
Appeal 2016-008732
Application 13/693,393
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Norin teaches a replica list that
contains the replica state (“meta-data”) for each replica node (“nodes” in a
“replication data processing system”) and a time stamp indicating when the
entry was last modified. Ans. 12 (citing Norin 3:55-67). Norin teaches the
replica list is sent to each node in the system. Norin 10:54-65. The
Examiner does not rely on Norin for teaching replicating meta-data into a
data structure of eventually consistent meta-data, instead relying on
Merriman, which teaches an eventually consistent database. Ans. 12-13
(citing Merriman || 7, 66).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant inquiry is
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here,
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they focus on the
individual disclosures of Norin and Merriman, ignoring the combination of
the references proposed by the Examiner. Indeed, Appellant has not
provided any persuasive argument or identified any persuasive evidence that
the Examiner erred in finding the proposed combination of Norin and
Merriman teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 10.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 10 as unpatentable over Norin and Merriman. On this
record, we, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 10. We also sustain the
rejections of independent claim 19, which Appellant argued for the same
4
Appeal 2016-008732
Application 13/693,393
reasons (App. Br. 3 4), and dependent claims 11-18 and 20-27, which were
not argued separately. App. Br. 9-10.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10-27.
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
5