Ex Parte Chidambaran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2017

11876679 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 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.
11/876,679 10/22/2007 Lakshminarayanan CHIDAMBARAN OID 2006-059-02 6660
55498 7590 08/25/2017
Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Oracle)
2160 Lundy Avenue
Suite 230
San Jose, CA 95131
EXAMINER
SHANMUGASUNDARAM, KANNAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2017 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@viplawgroup.com
ev@viplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAKSHMINARAYANAN CHID AMB ARAN,
MEHUL DILIP BASTAWALA,
SRINATH KRISHNASWAMY, TIRTHANKAR LAHIRI,
JUAN R. LOAIZA, BIPUL SINHA, and
SRINIVAS S. VEMURI1
Appeal 2017-005099
Application 11/876,679
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Oracle International
Corporation of Redwood Shores, California. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-005099
Application 11/876,679
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to “a client-side
cache.” Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method for a database server to
interact with a client supported by a client-side cache,
comprising:
using a computer system which comprises at least one
processor to perform a process, the process comprising:
maintaining a series of state identifiers that reflect a
state of a database on the database server and are updated
according to database transaction commits;
transmitting one or more result sets in response to
one or more database queries requested by a client to a
client-side cache, wherein the one or more result sets are
associated with a first state identifier in the series of state
identifiers;
committing one or more database transactions
performed on the database;
determining, at the database server, an updated state
identifier for the series by changing a current state
identifier in the series into the updated state identifier
based on committing the one or more database
transactions; and
transmitting cache invalidation and the updated
state identifier to a non-transitory computer readable
storage medium that is accessible by the client to update
the client-side cache.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 8—12, 16, 18—21, 23, 25, 29, and 33 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable over Eshleman
(US 2002/0116457, published Aug. 22, 2002). Final Act. 2—10.
2
Appeal 2017-005099
Application 11/876,679
Claims 2 and 13—15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Eshleman and Cardone
(US 2006/0036676, published Feb. 16,2006). Final Act. 10-12
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Eshleman and Carpenter
(US 5,544,345, issued Aug. 6, 1996). Final Act. 13—14.
Claims 6, 7, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Eshleman, Cardone, and
Perincherry (US 2002/0087798, published July 4, 2002). Final Act. 14—16.
Claims 24, 28, 32, and 26 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Eshleman and Perincherry.
Final Act. 16—21.
Claims 22, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, and 35 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) unpatentable over the combination of Eshleman and
Degenaro (US 6,823,514, issued Nov. 23, 2004). Final Act. 21—23.
ANAFYSIS
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 8, 10, and 18—20 collectively
(App. Br. 21—26; Reply Br. 2—13), arguing the dependent claims only on the
basis that Cardone, Carpenter, Perincherry, and Degenaro cannot cure
Eshleman’s deficiencies with respect to the independent claims (see App.
Br. 26—29). Accordingly, our decision with respect to the issue raised for
the independent claims is dispositive of this appeal.2
2 We note Appellants argued the Examiner’s Answer includes a new ground
of rejection not designated as such; however, that issue is not before us
because it is a petitionable matter (see 37 CFR § 1.181(a)(1)) and Appellants
waived the right to petition (see 37 CFR § 41.40(a)).
3
Appeal 2017-005099
Application 11/876,679
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the independent claims (App.
Br. 21—26; Reply Br. 4—12) raise the issue of whether the Examiner’s
construction of “client-side cache,” such that it includes Eshleman’s RSU
Cache (Eshleman Fig. 3A), is unreasonable. For the following reasons, we
do not find the Examiner’s construction to be unreasonable. We therefore
sustain the rejections of claims 1—36.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In
re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). “It is the applicants’ burden
to precisely define the invention, not the PTO’s.” In re Morris, 111 F.3d
1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants always have the opportunity to
amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the
Examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be
interpreted more broadly than is justified. Prater, 415 F.2d at 1404—05.
Appellants’ Specification discloses the following:
a caching daemon process may run on a middle tier and be shared
between multiple clients. The cache can be located per client
session, per client process shared by different sessions in same
process, in shared memory/daemon-process on client shared by
different client processes on the same machine, or in a daemon
on a different machine shared by different client machines. A
client-side query cache can either be in memory and/or on
physical storage accessible by client processes.
Spec. 14 (emphasis added).
The Examiner makes the following findings:
While some of these examples [in paragraph 4 of Appellants’
Specification] include a cache located specifically on a client, the
cache is also described as being “on a different machine shared
by different client machines.” This definition clearly describes a
4
Appeal 2017-005099
Application 11/876,679
server. Appellant also describes the cache, when it states, “A
client-side query cache can either be in memory and/or on
physical storage accessible by client processes.” Therefore, the
requirements for the cache based on these two definitions
includes a server or “different] machine shared by different
client machines,” which is accessible by client processes.
Ans. 3 (citing Spec. 14). Appellants do not persuasively rebut these
findings. See generally Reply Br. 4—12.
In particular, Appellants do not persuasively establish it is
unreasonable for the Examiner to find that Appellants’ definition of “client-
side query cache” also applies to “client-side caches” generally. Therefore,
we find the Examiner to have reasonably found “client-side cache” to
include “physical storage accessible by client processes” based on
Appellants’ explicit definition of “client-side query cache.” Ans. 3.
Accordingly, we see no error in the Examiner’s findings that the
claimed “client-side cache” reads on Eshleman’s RSU cache. Ans. 4 (“Since
the cache described in [0040] can be accessible by the client processes, and
multiple different clients can access the cache on a different machine, the
cache in . . . Eshleman meets the definition set forth for ‘client-side cache’
by the Appellant in the specification.”).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—36.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5