Ex Parte Dewall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2017

13326928 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 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.
1933.2060000 8772
EXAMINER
RAYYAN, SUSAN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/326,928 12/15/2011
82515 7590 03/17/2017
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Rhett Dondi Dewall
03/17/2017 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 RHETT DONDI DEWALL and HEPING SHANG
Appeal 2016-001913
Application 13/326,928
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, SHARON FENICK, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1—22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
and its1 The real parties in interest identified by Appellants are Sybase, Inc.,
parent corporation, SAP SE. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-001913
Application 13/326,928
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosed “invention relates generally to data processing
environments and, more particularly, to . . . directing a data replication
environment through policy declaration.” Spec. | 1. Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for directing
data replication in a database system environment, the method
comprising:
identifying a policy declaration defining a replication
environment declared in a hierarchical policy declaration
document; and
processing the policy declaration to instantiate the
replication environment according to parameters, including
precedence among tables, publishers, and subscribers,
established in the policy declaration.
Claims 1,2, 4—10, 12—18, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US 2007/0106864 Al;
May 10, 2007) and Anglin et al. (US 2013/0054518 Al; Feb. 28, 2013). See
Final Act. 3—8.
Claims 3,11, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moore, Anglin, and Prahlad et al. (US 2010/0122053 Al;
May 13, 2010). See Final Act. 8—9.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed May 11, 2015; “Reply Br.” filed Nov. 30, 2015) and the
Specification (“Spec.” filed Dec. 15, 2011) for the positions of Appellants
and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed June 2, 2014) and
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” mailed Oct. 2, 2015) for the reasoning, findings,
and conclusions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by
2
Appeal 2016-001913
Application 13/326,928
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUE
The issue presented by Appellants’ arguments is whether the
Examiner errs in finding Anglin, when combined with Moore, teaches or
suggests “processing the policy declaration to instantiate the replication
environment according to parameters, including precedence among tables,
publishers, and subscribers, established in the policy declaration” (the
“processing step”), as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments and contentions regarding
claim 1 (App. Br. 5—10; Reply Br. 2—A) in light of the Examiner’s findings,
conclusions, and explanations (Final Act. 2—\\ Ans. 2—11) regarding claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings, conclusions, and explanations and,
except as may be set forth below, we adopt them as our own. The following
discussion, findings, and conclusions are for emphasis.
The Examiner finds Anglin, when combined with Moore, teaches the
processing step. See Final Act. 3^4 (citing Moore 119; Anglin || 6, 19—20);
see also Ans. 4—11 (additionally citing Anglin || 18, 26—27, 30, 33, 35—36;
Figs. 1—3, 6). In particular, the Examiner maps the recited “tables” to
Anglin’s “List of Chunks” in Anglin’s Information Object structure (Ans. 5
(citing Anglin || 26, 35, Fig. 2)); the Examiner maps the recited
“publishers” and “subscribers” to Anglin’s “Client Nodes” in the
3
Appeal 2016-001913
Application 13/326,928
Information Object structure (Ans. 4—5 (citing Anglin || 35—36, Figs. 1, 2));
and maps the recited “processing . . . according to parameters, including
precedence” to Anglin’s replication rules having assigned levels and
priorities (Ans. 5—7 (citing Anglin || 18, 27, 30, 33, Figs. 3, 6)).
Appellants contend Anglin, combined with Moore, does not teach or
suggest the processing step for the reasons discussed infra.
Tables, Publishers, and Subscribers
Appellants contend “there is no disclosure in Anglin that maps
[Anglin’s] information types to tables, publishers, and subscribers.” App.
Br. 8. Appellants further contend “Anglin’s attributes are not equivalent to
tables, publishers, and subscribers of claim 1.” App. Br. 8. We disagree.
“[A],.. reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the
claims.” Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d
1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991); cf. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Inti Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 &
n.l 1 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (interpretation of references “is not an ‘ipsissimis
verbis’ test.”). Anglin teaches the replication of data objects 12a, 12b
(Anglin, Fig. 1), each of which has an associated object information 10a,
10b (id.), 50 (id. at Fig. 2) made up of metadata or entries for the objects
12a, 12b (id. 119). Anglin’s data object is comprised of an ordered list of
chunks of data assigned to the object (id.) and the list of chunks is an entry
54 (i.e., attribute) in the object information 50 (id. at Fig. 2). The
Specification contains no definition of a “table,” and an “ordered list” of
data, i.e., information, falls within the ordinary meaning of “table.”
Accordingly, we conclude, as did the Examiner, that Anglin’s list of chunks
4
Appeal 2016-001913
Application 13/326,928
of data falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “table” in light
of the Specification. See Ans. 5.
As pointed out by Appellants, the Specification states “[a] publisher
describes what is to be pulled from a primary source (e.g., a primary
database), and a subscriber describes which information will be replicated
from any of its publishers.” Spec. 1 6; see App. Br. 9.2 Each data
information 50 (Anglin, Fig. 2) includes an entry 56 identifying the client
node as an attribute of the data object 10a, 10b. Anglin describes that “[t]he
replication may be performed on behalf of client nodes connected to the
source server 4a to replicate objects owned by the client node and provided
by the client node to store in the source storage 8a.” Id. 119. Thus Anglin’s
client nodes both describe what is to be pulled from the source database and
what will be replicated in the target database, and are within the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “publishers” and “subscribers.” See Ans. 4—5.
Precedence
Appellants contend “Anglin at best describes a hierarchy or
precedence of replication rules rather than ‘precedence among tables,
publishers, and subscribers’ as specifically recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 7.
We disagree.
As explained by the Examiner, Anglin teaches replication rules 80
govern the replication of data objects in accordance with one or more
replication attributes 86, 88. Anglin 127, Fig.3; see Ans. 5—6. Each of
2 Appellants and Examiner erroneously cite to paragraph 8 of the
Specification for this quotation (see App. Br. 9; Ans. 4), perhaps referring to
the corresponding published patent application, US 2013/0159253 Al, June
20, 2013, rather than the Specification.
5
Appeal 2016-001913
Application 13/326,928
Anglin’s replication rules 80 has a specified level 84 and priority 94.
Anglin, Fig. 3; see also id. at Fig. 6. Anglin teaches that the function of the
“level 84 of the replication rule [is] to provide a hierarchical arrangement of
replication rules, such that rules at a lower, more specific, level are applied
before those at a higher, more general, level.” Id. 127. In other words, low
level rules (e.g., level 3 {id. Fig. 6)) are applied before high level rules (e.g.,
level 1 {id.)). Appellants are correct that Anglin describes a precedence
among replication rules. App. Br. 7. However, one of the attributes 86, 88
that causes the replication rule to be applied to a data object is the client
node value 166i n, 186^, 196^. Anglin, Fig. 6. Thus, the precedence
among Anglin’s replication rules establishes a precedence among Anglin’s
client nodes, i.e., among “publishers” and “subscribers.” Anglin further
teaches “priorities may be provided in the replication rule to associate a
priority with objects that satisfy the replication rule to control the priority in
which objects are copied to the target server as part of replications.” Id.
118. By establishing priorities, i.e., precedence, among data objects to be
copied, a precedence is established among the lists of chunks of data, i.e.,
“tables,” included in the data objects to be replicated.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Anglin’s levels and
priorities of replication rules fall within the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “precedence among tables, publishers, and subscribers,” as
recited in claim 1. See Ans. 5—7.
Granularity
Appellants contend the combination of Moore and Anglin fails to
achieve the advantage of granularity among tables, publishers and
subscribers. Reply Br. 3. Although presented for the first time in the Reply
6
Appeal 2016-001913
Application 13/326,928
Brief, Appellants’ contention is reasonably responsive to the Examiner’s
Answer. Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(a)(2). The Specification discloses the
following:
Additionally, the declarations describe the arrangement
of the data constituents of the replication environment, i.e., the
data groups/publishers/subscribers/tables arrangement. In an
embodiment, a data group acts as a container mechanism of
publishers and subscribers and their associated tables
undergoing replication. These declarations may be specified at
any and/or every level, where a table precedes a subscriber
value, which precedes a publisher value, which precedes a data
group value. In this manner there is granular control over the
replication environment, e.g., one subscriber may behave
differently than another and tables within a subscriber may
behave differently than another.
Spec. 134 (emphases added).
We are not persuaded of error. The processing step of claim 1 does
not recite a data group that acts as a container mechanism. Indeed, claim 1
does not recite any limitation of how the precedence is established and how
the precedence of the tables, publishers, and subscribers may be interrelated.
As conceded by Appellants, the advantages achieved by the embodiment
described in paragraph 34 of the Specification are “non-limiting.” Reply Br.
3.
Hindsight
Appellants contend “the Examiner . . . relies on improper hindsight to
map the elements of Appellants’] claims to prior art using Appellants’]
claims as a road map.” App. Br. 9. We disagree.
In view of our findings and conclusions set forth supra, we find the
Examiner has “take[n] into account only knowledge which was within the
level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does
7
Appeal 2016-001913
Application 13/326,928
not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure.” In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, we conclude
the Examiner has not exercised improper hindsight.
Summary
Appellants do not persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims
9 and 17, which are argued relying on the arguments made for claim 1 (see
App. Br. 10); (3) claims 2, 4—8, 10, 12—16, 18, and 22, which variously
depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1,9, and 17, and were not
separately argued with particularity (see id.)', and (4) claims 2, 11, and 19,
which respectively depend indirectly from claims 1, 9, and 17, and were not
separately argued with particularity, other than to contend that Prahlad does
not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 (see App. Br.
10-11).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b).
AFFIRMED
8