Ex Parte KruglickDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 25, 201913634013 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/634,013 154241 7590 IP Spring - AI 180 N. LaSalle St. Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60601 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 09/11/2012 Ezekiel Kruglick 02/27/2019 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. MTCW002802 2489 EXAMINER ANDERSEN, KRISTOPHER E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2019 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): ajay.gambhir@ipspring.com docket@ipspring.com paralegalteam@ipspring.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EZEKIEL KRUGLICK 1 Appeal2017-003329 Application 13/634,013 Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOYCE CRAIG, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-12, 14, 27, 28, and 32-35. Claims 5, 13, 15-26, 29-31, and 36-75 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Empire Technology Development LLC. See Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2017-003329 Application 13/634,013 Invention Embodiments of Appellant's claimed invention relate to "multiple variable coverage memory for database indexing." Abstract. Exemplary Claim 1. A method comprising: receiving a database by a cloud digital service provider; subsequent to receiving the database, initially storing a basic database index by the cloud digital service provider, wherein the basic database index is initially stored in a first memory associated with a first performance level, wherein the basic database index is configured to locate data records in the database, and wherein the basic database index comprises key values to locate the data records in the database; building an optimized database index configured to locate data records in the database, wherein the optimized database index comprises key values to locate the data records in the database; storing the optimized database index in a second memory associated with a second performance level, wherein the second performance level is lower speed than the first performance level, and wherein the first performance level is higher speed than the second performance level; gradually shifting, during the building of the optimized database index, from use of the basic database index in the first memory to locate data records in the database, to use of the optimized database index in the second memory to locate data records in the database, to hereby transition from index coverage for the database being dominated by the basic database index in the first memory to index coverage for the database being dominated by the optimized database index in the second memory; wherein building the optimized database index comprises: 2 Appeal2017-003329 Application 13/634,013 receiving queries comprising requests for one or more of the data records in the database and modifying the basic database index using query data corresponding to received queries to configure the optimized database index to provide faster responses to received queries. (Emphasis added regarding contested limitations). Rejections A. Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 12, 14, 27, 28, and 32-35 are rejected under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Shapiro (US 2005/0198062 Al, published Sept. 8, 2005) in view of Ferris (US 2012/0221845 Al, published Aug. 30, 2012), and Boss et al. (US 7,669,026 B2, issued Feb. 23, 2010) ("Boss"). B. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Shapiro, Ferris, Boss, and further in view of Schreter (US 2010/0161569 Al, issued June 24, 2010). C. Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Shapiro, Ferris, Boss, and further in view of Klosterhalfen et al. (US 2004/0172408 Al, published Sept. 2, 2004) ("Klosterhalfen"). ANALYSIS We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and any evidence presented. We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's responses to Appellant's 3 Appeal2017-003329 Application 13/634,013 arguments. In our analysis below, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis. Rejection A of Independent Claim 1 under 35 US. C. § 103 (a) Regarding rejection A, Appellant contests the Examiner's findings regarding the following limitations, as recited in independent claim 1: gradually shifting, during the building of the optimized database index, from use of the basic database index in the first memory to locate data records in the database, to use of the optimized database index in the second memory to locate data records in the database, to hereby transition from index coverage for the database being dominated by the basic database index in the first memory to index coverage for the database being dominated by the optimized database index in the second memory; Claim 1 ( emphasis added). See Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner finds the aforementioned limitations are principally taught by Shapiro, at paragraphs 16 and 73-75, as modified by Boss. Final Act. 3. Referring to Shapiro (id.), the Examiner explains the basis for the rejection: "Initially, the data is placed in the memory cache. Periodically, the data is moved from the memory cache to the disk cache and organized such that it can be read quickly from the disk cache." Final Act. 4. The Examiner also finds: "Shapiro as modified teaches the optimized database index in the second memory, but does not explicitly teach transitioning to index coverage being dominated by the optimized database index in the second memory." Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). To overcome the deficiency found in Shapiro (id.), the Examiner looks to Boss for teaching or suggesting "transitioning to data coverage 4 Appeal2017-003329 Application 13/634,013 being dominated by the second memory (see Boss, col. 9, lines 27-29, 'migrates data to the new tier')." Final Act. 5. Turning to the evidence relied upon by the Examiner, Boss describes in pertinent part: If the service class has changed then logic flows to element 322 to determine a new storage. At element 322, a new storage tier is determined. Then, the system migrates data to the new tier (element 324). The system then waits for a specified time interval and the process continues at element 302. Boss, col. 9, 11. 23-29 (emphasis added). In response, Appellant contends: the Official Action alleged that transitioning "to index coverage for the database being dominated by the optimized index in the second memory," while lacking in Shapiro, can be found at Boss col. 9, lines 27-29, and that, "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to transition data coverage, as taught by Boss, in the system taught by Shapiro." Official Action page 5. Boss is directed to "Systems and Methods of Memory Migration" (title). Boss describes automatically migrating data among different storage locations. For example, Boss col. 9, lines 27-29 includes discussion of Boss FIG. 3, stating that, "Then, the system migrates data to the new tier ( element 324). The system then waits for a specified time interval and the process continues at element 302." This discussion, and the remainder of Boss, discusses migrating data without any discussion of indexes or index coverage. App. Br. 4 ( emphasis omitted). 5 Appeal2017-003329 Application 13/634,013 Claim Construction We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI") consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, both the "basic database index" and the "optimized database index" are similarly "configured to locate data records in the database" and both indexes comprise "key values to locate the data records in the database." Claim 1. Regarding the two distinctly claimed indexes recited in claim 1 ("a basic database index" and "an optimized database index"), our reviewing court guides that the use of two similar but different terms "in close proximity in the same claim gives rise to an inference that a different meaning should be assigned to each." Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In another case, the Federal Circuit concluded as a matter of claim construction: [i]f the terms "pusher assembly" and "pusher bar" described a single element, one would expect the claim to consistently refer to this element as either a "pusher bar" or a "pusher assembly," but not both, especially not within the same clause. Therefore, in our view, the plain meaning of the claim will not bear a reading that "pusher assembly" and "pusher bar" are synonyms. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1996). This guidance is applicable here. In reviewing the evidence cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 2-5), we agree with Appellant that Boss is silent regarding any mention of indexes, much less indexes of two distinct types (i.e., "a basic database index" and "an optimized database index"). Claim 1. Under a broad but reasonable interpretation, claim 1 requires a gradual shift from the use of a first index of a first type ( as initially stored in a first 6 Appeal2017-003329 Application 13/634,013 memory) to the use of a second index of a second type (as stored in a second memory), in which the shift occurs in the specific temporal manner claimed: "gradually shifting, during the building of the optimized database index, from use of the basic database index in the first memory . . . to use of the optimized database index in the second memory." Claim 1 ( emphasis added) Although Shapiro discloses indexes (e.g., ,r,r 74, 76-77), we note the evidence the Examiner cites in support of the rejection (Shapiro ,r,r 16, 73- 7 5) describes generic data migration, and not gradually shifting from the use of an index of a first type to the use of an ( optimized) index of a second type. At best, we find Shapiro (i-f 77) teaches streaming a single index from a disk cache to a memory cache when "it is necessary to load the disk into memory cache 26 to thereby accelerate the process of moving or copying the index between the fast disk cache 28 and memory cache 26." On this record, we find Shapiro and Boss, considered alone or collectively, do not teach or suggest gradually shifting the use of index data between two distinct types of indexes in the specific temporal manner claimed. Nor has the Examiner shown that Ferris overcomes the aforementioned deficiencies of Shapiro and Boss, because the Examiner merely relies on Ferris (i-f 52) for teaching a cloud digital service provider. See Final Act. 4. For these reasons, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner erred regarding the contested limitations recited in claim 1. Therefore, we reverse rejection A of independent claim 1, and we also reverse Rejection A of independent claims 14 and 27, which similarly recite the contested limitations in commensurate 7 Appeal2017-003329 Application 13/634,013 form. Because we have reversed the Examiner's Rejection A of each independent claim on appeal, we also reverse the Examiner's Rejection A of all dependent claims rejected thereunder. Rejections B and C Regarding the remaining dependent claims rejected under§ 103(a) Rejections Band C, we find the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited secondary references (Schreter and/or Klosterhalfen) overcome the deficiencies of the base combination of Shapiro, Ferris, and Boss, as discussed above regarding Rejection A of independent claims 1, 14, and 27. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to also reverse Rejections Band C of all remaining dependent claims on appeal. Conclusion The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 6-12, 14, 27, 28, and 32-35 as being obvious over the cited combinations of references under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-12, 14, 27, 28, and 32-35 underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation