Ex Parte Golab et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2016

13285755 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/285,755 10/31/2011 Wojciech Golab
56436 7590 03/15/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82775047 4796
EXAMINER
VO,TRUONGV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOJCIECH GOLAB, NATHAN LORENZO BINKERT,
INDRAJIT ROY, MEHUL A. SHAH and BRUCE WALKER
Appeal2014-004299
Application 13/285,755
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-004299
Application 13/285,755
I. STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates generally to
"techniques for server replication and transaction commitment in a
distributed transactional storage system," and specifically to "a single
protocol for both commitment of transactions and server replication in a
distributed transactional storage system" (Spec. i-f 13).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method; comprising:
receiving a transaction from a client node at one or more
memory nodes, each memory node comprising a plurality of
replicas;
determining, for each one of the plurality of replicas,
whether the replica is able to commit the transaction;
sending a response from each one of the plurality of
replicas to a consensus node, wherein the consensus node is
configured to record whether the response is a commit
response;
committing the transaction if, at each memory node, a
quorum of the replicas is able to commit the transaction; and
aborting the transaction otherwise.
2
Appeal2014-004299
Application 13/285,755
C. REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Rich (US 6,457 ,065 B 1, issued Sept. 24, 2002). 1
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Rich teaches "determining, for each one of the plurality of
replicas, whether the replica is able to commit the transaction;" "sending a
response from each one of the plurality of replicas to a consensus node" that
"is configured to record whether the response is a commit response;" and
"committing the transaction if, at each memory node, a quorum of replicas is
able to commit the transaction" (claim 1, emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Rich
1. Rich discloses transaction-scoped replication for distributed object
systems, wherein a remote object is replicated to the node of the distributed
system from which it is accessed such that method invocations on the object
occur locally (Abst.). Figure 4A is reproduced below:
1 The rejection of claims 9-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn
(Ans. 2).
3
Appeal2014-004299
Application 13/285,755
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~:·:~~~.:..:.~ .......................... ~-1
l~"\;'~~r~t] I ' _,
[~~]~H [~~~'.]~lZI
···········'.······················'···········:
-· ·-· ,_,,_. . . ······-
l~~~l=--~~r4f ~r r f'.~~~1~~·~
Figure 4A shows a distributed object system 400 having six nodes
401--406 (i.e., nodes 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.2.1), with four
transactions 410--440. Node 401 is a parent of transaction 410 which has
two child nodes 411, 412 in the local node, wherein child 411 has a child
413 in node 1.1, \vhich has its O\Vn child 414 in node 1.1.2, \vhile the child
412 has a child 415 at node 1.2, which has a child 416 at node 1.2.1. Thus,
transaction 410 spans five physical nodes following the path through
elements 410, 412, 415, 416, and 418, for example. Transaction 420 on the
other hand, has its root at node 1.1 ( 402), with child node 421 at node 1.1,
and descendent nodes 422, 423, 424 at node 1.1.1 ( 403), while transaction
430 is located only on node 1.1.2 (404) and transaction 440 is located only
on node 1.2.1 (406) (col. 9, 11. 41---67).
2. Rich's system replicates remote objects from a parent node to a child
node during a transaction, and merges the replicas back to the parent upon
the transaction being committed, wherein, during a transaction, each method
invocation between objects happens locally within the client node using the
4
Appeal2014-004299
Application 13/285,755
client's replica and modified replicas are merged back to the persistent store
at a server node. A child transaction at any level may either commit or roll
them back, wherein if the child transaction commits, its versions of
replicated remote objects are merged to its parent transaction and the remote
object instance is updated when the top-level transaction is committed (col.
11, 11. 36----67).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend "Rich does not disclose the recited technique for
determining when to commit a transaction" (App. Br. 11 ). According to
Appellants, in Rich, "the transaction will commit unless there is a data
conflict,'" whereas in the claimed invention, "the determination of whether
to commit is dependent upon a quorum of replicas at each memory node
being able to commit the transaction" (id.). Further, Appellants contend,
"Rich does not disclose a consensus node configured to record response"
and "no voting scheme of any kind is disclosed in Rich" (id.).
We consider all of Appellants' arguments and evidence presented, and
disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's rejections of
the claims. 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 Answer in response to arguments
made in Appellants' Appeal Brief.
As an initial matter, we must give the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, we will not read limitations from the
Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
5
Appeal2014-004299
Application 13/285,755
Although Appellants contend, "no voting scheme of any kind is
disclosed in Rich" and thus "Rich does not disclose the recited technique for
determining when to commit a transaction" (App. Br. 11 ), we note claim 1
does not require any "voting scheme," but merely requires "committing the
transaction if. .. a quorum of the replicas is able to commit" (claim 1 ).
Further, although Appellants contend that, in Rich, "the transaction will
commit unless there is a data conflict," (id.), the claim does not preclude
committing when there is no data conflict, as long as a quorum of the
replicas is able to commit.
Thus, giving the claim its broadest, reasonable interpretation, we
conclude claim 1 merely requires committing the transaction if (when) there
is a quorum of replicas (i.e., the number of replicas required) to commit. We
find no error with the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation that
"'quorum' can be interpreted as 'children' and, when the children are
committed, all the nodes located above the children are also committed
based on dependency"' (Ans. 4). That is, we agree a "quorum" encompasses
the children and all the nodes located above the children that are needed to
commit (id.).
Rich discloses replicating remote objects from a parent node to a child
node during a transaction, wherein a child transaction at any level may either
commit or roll them back (FF 1-2). We agree with the Examiner's finding
that Rich discloses "determining, for each one of the plurality of replicas,
whether the replica is able to commit the transaction," as recited in claim 1.
In Rich, each method invocation between objects happens locally
within the client node using the client's replica and modified replicas are
merged back to the persistent store at a server node (FF 1-2). We agree with
6
Appeal2014-004299
Application 13/285,755
the Examiner's finding "Rich teaches ... replicating remote objects to the
local system(s) which access the objects" wherein "the user (local system)
eventually decides whether to permanently commit the changes
encompassed by the transaction, or whether to discard them" (Ans. 4). In
Rich, if the child transaction commits, its versions of replicated remote
objects are merged to its parent transaction and the remote object instance is
updated when the top-level transaction is committed (FF 1-2). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner's reliance on Rich for disclosing "sending a
response from each one of the plurality of replicas to a consensus node" that
"is configured to record whether the response is a commit response," as
recited in claim 1.
As discussed above, and as the Examiner concludes, "'quorum' can be
interpreted as 'children' and when the children are committed all the nodes
located above the children are also committed based on dependency"' (Ans.
4). Thus, we find no error with the Examiner's finding that Rich discloses
committing the transaction if (when) there is a quorum of replicas (i.e., the
number of replicas required) to commit (Ans. 4). In view of our broadest
reasonable interpretation, we find no error with the Examiner's finding that
Rich teaches "committing the transaction if, at each memory node, a quorum
of replicas is able to commit the transaction," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, independent claims 9 and 19 falling therewith (App. Br.
12), and claims 2-8, 10-18, and 20 depending respectively therefrom, as
being anticipated by Rich.
7
Appeal2014-004299
Application 13/285,755
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
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
8