Ex Parte NEUMANN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 2017

13295540 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 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. 13/295,540 11/14/2011 FRANK NEUMANN DE920070048US2 8152-0154 1000 73109 7590 08/31/2017 rWnnt Fnrsvfiie& Kim T T C EXAMINER 20283 State Road 7 Ste. 300 NGUYEN, MERILYN P Boca Raton, EL 33498 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2017 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): ibmptomail@iplawpro.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANK NEUMANN and GERHARD PFAU Appeal 2017-002527 Application 13/295,5401 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, SCOTT E. BAIN, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. YAP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 18—23, 25—33, and 35—37, which are all the claims pending in this application. Claims 24 and 34 have been cancelled. (See Final Office Action (mailed October 28, 2015) (“Final Act.”) 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is IBM Corporation. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2017-002527 Application 13/295,540 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, Appellants’ invention relates to “accessing data entities in a client-server system and to a client-server system.” (November 14, 2011 Specification (“Spec.”) 1.) Specifically, the invention generally relates to caching of data in a client-server system and to a client-server system. (Spec. 8—15.) Claims 18 and 23 are illustrative, and are reproduced below (with minor reformatting): 18. A method, within an application server, of accessing an original first data entity, comprising: determining whether a copy of the original first data entity is within an intra-transactional cache associated with a first client; upon the copy being within the intra-transactional cache, re-reading the original first data entity from a repository separate from the intra-transactional cache; after the original first data entity is re-read from the repository, removing a lock entry in an inter-transactional cache; and providing, to the first client, access to the intra transactional cache. 23. A method, within an application server, of accessing an original first data entity, comprising: determining whether a copy of the original first data entity is within an intra-transactional cache associated with a first client; upon the copy not being within the intra transactional cache, determining whether the copy is within an inter-transactional cache; upon the copy not being within the inter transactional cache, reading the original first data entity from a repository separate from both the intra transactional cache and the inter-transactional cache; providing, to the first client, access to the intra- 2 Appeal 2017-002527 Application 13/295,540 transactional cache; and adding, to the intra-transactional cache, a reference to the copy within the inter-transactional cache. Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Attaluri et al. (“Attaluri”) US 5,897,634 Apr. 27, 1999 Donnelly US 5,946,711 Aug. 31, 1999 Fewontin US 2002/0087596 Al July 4, 2002 Claims 23, 27, 33,2 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Attaluri. (See Final Act. 2-4.) Claims 18—22, 25, 28—32, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Attaluri in view of Donnelly. (See Final Act. 4-7.) Claims 26 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Attaluri in view of Fewontin. (See Final Act. 7.) 2 The Examiner lists claim 34 in the rejection but proceeds to discuss claim 33, and the Final Action indicates claim 34 was cancelled. (See Final Act. 2.) Therefore, we consider the reference to claim 34 to be a typographical error. 3 Appeal 2017-002527 Application 13/295,540 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal.3 Claims 23, 27, 33, and 37 With respect to independent claims 23 and 33, the Examiner finds that Attaluri discloses “adding, to the intra-transactional cache, a reference to the copy within the inter-transactional cache.” (Final Act. 3.) According to the Examiner, column 8, line 25 through column 9, line 39 of Attaluri discloses the limitation at issue. (Id.) Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the cited portions of Attaluri: do[] not teach “the data is referenced when another transaction begins, wherein the data referenced are the copies of global data cache 128,” which is the Examiner’s explicit finding of fact. Retrieving data from the global data cache 128 (i.e., the alleged inter-transactional cache) and saving the data in data cache 122, 124, or 126 (i.e., the alleged intra-transactional cache) is not adding a reference to the copy within the inter-transactional cache. Instead, what is being added to the alleged inter transactional cache is the copy of the data itself— not a reference to a copy of the data. (App. Br. 12, underline in original, italics added; Reply 3.) We have reviewed the portions of Attaluri cited by the Examiner and agree with Appellants that, based on the record before us, Attaluri discloses adding the data from the global data cache 128 (i.e., the inter-transactional 3 Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons discussed herein, we need not address Appellants’ further arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). 4 Appeal 2017-002527 Application 13/295,540 cache) to data cache 122, 124, or 126 (i.e., the intra-transactional cache). However, the limitation at issue requires “adding, to the intra-transactional cache, a reference to the copy within the inter-transactional cache” not the copy of the data itself. The Examiner does not explain how the cited portions of Attaluri add “a reference to the copy” rather than just the copy and, therefore, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of these claims. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 23 and 33 and do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 23 and 33, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 27 and 37, which depend from either independent claim 23 or 33. Claims 18—22, 25, 26, 28—32, 35, and 36 With respect to independent claims 18 and 28, the Examiner finds Attaluri teaches or suggests “after the original first data entity is re-read from the repository.” (Final Act. 5.) According to the Examiner, column 5, lines 27 to 50 of Attaluri teach or suggest the limitation at issue. (Id.) Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “the data is not being re read from a repository separate from the intra-transactional cache. Instead, the data is being read from the global data cache 128 (i.e., the alleged inter transactional cache).” (App. Br. 15.) In other words, Appellants contend that re-reading the data from global data cache 128 (i.e., the alleged inter transactional cache) is not the same as “re-read from the repository” because the inter-transactional cache cannot be the repository. Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. We agree that a “repository” and an “inter-transactional cache” are two distinct elements. For example, the Specification states that the “inter-transactional cache 5 Appeal 2017-002527 Application 13/295,540 provides the advantage that the clients of the set of clients might get access to a data entity that has been retrieved from the repository by another client. . . (Spec. 9; see also id. (“In addition, the inter-transactional cache provides also the advantage that the same client accessing and/or modifying the same data entity in subsequent transactions does not need to re-read the entire data entity from the repository”).) The Examiner does not respond to Appellants’ contention (Ans. 4) and we agree with Appellants, based on the record before us, that Attaluri does not teach or suggest “re-read[ing] from the repository” “the original first data entity.” Instead, the “original first data entity” is re-read from the “inter-transactional cache.” For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 18 and 28 and do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 18 and 28, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 19-22, 25, 26, 29-32, 35, and 36, which depend from either independent claim 18 or 28. DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 18—23, 25— 33, and 35—37. REVERSED 6