Ex Parte Parees et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 17, 201311858931 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/858,931 09/21/2007 Benjamin Michael Parees RSW920070248US1 3642 58139 7590 04/17/2013 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. P.O. BOX 131851 DALLAS, TX 75313 EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2161 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/17/2013 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 BENJAMIN MICHAEL PAREES, DAVID MICHAEL EADS, DAVID MICHAEL ENYEART, LUIS EDUARDO GUILLEN-SANCHEZ, LATHA SIVAKUMAR, and DAN MCBRYDE WILLEY ____________________ Appeal 2010-012471 Application 11/858,931 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-012471 Application 11/858,931 2 STATEMENT 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 reverse. INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates generally to relational databases, and more particularly to performing synchronization between the relational source and target tables in an efficient manner using an application that is platform agnostic while minimizing the contention at the source table. (Spec. 1). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for performing synchronization between source and target tables comprising the steps of: locking one or more rows in a first table, wherein said first table stores one or more primary key values associated with one or more rows in a source table that have been one of modified and created by an external data source; copying distinct values for said one or more primary keys from said first table; inserting said copied distinct values for said one or more primary keys into one or more rows of a second table; and performing uncommitted read operations on said source table for each row corresponding to each distinct value stored in said second table; and one or more of updating and inserting of one or more rows in a target table that correspond to each row in said source table where an uncommitted read operation was performed. Appeal 2010-012471 Application 11/858,931 3 (disputed limitations emphasized). REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestion of Zoltan (US Patent 6,938,031 B1), Ching Chen (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0087561 A1), Ama (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0218405 A1), and Biswal (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0161606 A1). (Ans. 4-9). ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Zoltan, Chen, Ama, and Biswal would have taught or suggested: copying distinct values for said one or more primary keys from said first table; inserting said copied distinct values for said one or more primary keys into one or more rows of a second table; and performing uncommitted read operations on said source table for each row corresponding to each distinct value stored in said second table, within the meaning of claim 1, and as recited in commensurate form in independent claims 8 and 14? (See App. Br. 5-12). 2. Under § 103, did the Examiner err in combining the cited references? Appeal 2010-012471 Application 11/858,931 4 Contentions Regarding Issue 1, as acknowledged by Appellants: Zoltan teaches that a change made to the information in a database is stored in a change table. Furthermore, Zoltan teaches that a new entry in table 418 is generated each time information in the database is added, deleted or modified. . . . Ama teaches converting the extracted data (data read from a source) from its previous form into a form that it needs to be in and cleansing it so that it can be placed in the target. (App. Br. 19). However, Appellants contend: There is no language in the cited passages that teaches that the data stored in the one or more rows of the target table corresponds to the data read from the source table for each row corresponding to each distinct value stored in the second table. The Examiner has not identified with specificity any element or passage in any of the cited references where the claimed distinct value is allegedly taught or where the second table is allegedly taught. . . . As understood by Appellants, the Examiner admits that Zoltan does not teach "copying distinct values for said one or more primary keys from said first table" as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claims 8 and 14. Office Action (10/26/2009), page 5; Office Action (3/18/2010), page 15. (App. Br. 19-20). Regarding Issue 2, Appellants contend: The Examiner has not provided any rational underpinning as to how the Examiner derived his motivation for modifying Zoltan to include the above-cited missing claim limitations. The Examiner simply states to "to adapt to the user's requirements for managing data ... [and] in order to Appeal 2010-012471 Application 11/858,931 5 increase data availability and backup potential, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art" as reasoning for modifying Zoltan to include the above-cited claim limitations. While the Examiner may consider many factors in finding a reason to combine, the Examiner still must explain how the Examiner derived the reasoning for modifying Zoltan to include the above-cited missing claim limitations. M.P.E.P. §2143. (App. Br. 20-21). Regarding the proffered combination of Zoltan, Ama, and Chen with the Biswal reference, Appellants further contend: The Examiner's reasoning for modifying Zoltan with Biswal to include the above-cited claim limitations [“performing uncommitted read operations . . .”] is "to save space and increase efficiency, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art." Office Action (10/26/2009), page 8; Office Action (3/18/2010), pages 6-7, 17. The Examiner's reasoning is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in rejecting claims 1-20. (App. Br. 24). In particular, Appellants challenge the Examiner’s reasoning: what is the rational connection between performing uncommitted read operations on the source table for each row corresponding to each distinct value stored in the second table (missing claim limitation) and saving space and increasing efficiency (Examiner's reasoning)? Additionally, what is the rational connection between updating and/or inserting of one or more rows in a target table that correspond to each row in the source table where an uncommitted read operation was performed (missing claim limitations) and saving space and increasing efficiency (Examiner's reasoning)? (App. Br. 25-26). Appeal 2010-012471 Application 11/858,931 6 The Examiner disagrees: As noted above, Zoltan has a change table with more than the necessary elements. It would have been obvious to remove unnecessary elements and their function to save space. Removing the element and its function would also lead one of ordinary skill to achieve the claimed subject matter, because the same data that was removed could just as easily be obtained elsewhere. This strengthens the desire to delete certain data from the change table. Saving space is recognized to be desirable. Saving space increases processing efficiency at least because there is less data to be processed by the computer. Here, the elements removed include the timestamp (fig. 7, #708) which is no longer needed because there is no need to record the time of the transaction for the purpose of the claim. Further, the table entries (fig. 7, #704) can be removed because any data contained within them can as easily have been obtained by using the row ID (#706). For example, in fig. 7, rows 1, 7, 18, and 1028 of the source database were changed (e.g., Zoltan, col. 18, ll. 66-67; col. 19, l. 1). One could have used the row ID's 1, 7, 18, and 1028, to obtain the same data from the database as provided in the table entry. Thus, the table entry and its function would no longer be needed. (Ans. 15-16, emphasis added). We observe that Appellants particularly address the Examiner’s reliance on the removal of certain elements from Zoltan’s database table (in response to the Final Office action mailed Mar. 18, 2010): The Examiner proceeds to explain that it would have been obvious to remove the data in change table 418 since that data can be found elsewhere. If that is the case, then why have change table 418 at all? Zoltan explains that change table 418 does serve a purpose--to track the changes to the information in data stores 404. However, by simply deleting all of its data as suggested by the Examiner, change table 418 could not serve its purpose and it would become meaningless to have. (App. Br. 26-27). Appeal 2010-012471 Application 11/858,931 7 ANALYSIS At the outset, we observe the Examiner admits in the statement of rejection for claim 1 that “Zoltan and Ching Chen as applied above do not expressly teach: (2) copying distinct values for the primary keys from the first table; [and] (3) inserting the copied distinct values for the one or more primary keys into one or more rows of a second table.” (Ans. 5). For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants in the Brief (4-12), on this record, we are unconvinced that Ama and Biswal overcome the deficiencies of Zoltan and Chen. Although Ama teaches the general “process of converting the extracted data from its previous form into the form it needs to be in and cleansing it so that it can be placed in the target (e.g., a new database, data mart, or data warehouse)” (para. [0023]), we agree with Appellants that “[t]here is no language in the cited passages that teaches that the data stored in the one or more rows of the target table corresponds to the data read from the source table for each row corresponding to each distinct value stored in the second table.” (App. Br. 19, emphasis added). Thus we agree with Appellants that the recited “copying” and “inserting” steps of claim 1 are not fully met by Zoltan and Ama when combined with the respective cited teachings of Chen and Biswal. (Id.). Although Biswal teaches the general use of uncommitted database reads “to increase efficiency” (para [0021]), on this record, we do not find the Examiner has established that Biswal overcomes the aforementioned deficiencies with Zoltan and Ama. Instead, we find the Examiner generally Appeal 2010-012471 Application 11/858,931 8 proffers a theory of possible use of selected features of the cited references in a manner that comports with Appellants’ claims. (Ans. 15-16).1 We additionally agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s proffered motivation to combine Zoltan, Chen, and Ama with Biswal (saving space) is unconvincing because Biswal increases efficiency not by saving (storage) space, but by “increas[ing] overall data throughput [and], reduc[ing] client response time.” (Biswal, para. [0021]). Moreover, the Examiner’s own statement of record evidences clear reliance on impermissible hindsight: Saving space is recognized to be desirable. Saving space increases processing efficiency at least because there is less data to be processed by the computer. Here, the elements removed include the timestamp (fig. 7, #708) which is no longer needed because there is no need to record the time of the transaction for the purpose of the claim. (Ans. 15). We find the aforementioned statement that removing elements from Zoltan’s table (Figure 7) “for the purpose of the claim” is impermissible hindsight per se. (Id.).2 1 The Examiner's articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court stated that “‘rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”’ KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). 2 In KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, the U.S. Supreme Court guides that “[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of argument reliant upon ex post reasoning.” (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966)). Appeal 2010-012471 Application 11/858,931 9 Because the evidence supports Appellants’ contention that at least the copying and inserting steps of claim 1 are not met by the Examiner’s proffered combination of references, and because we agree with Appellants that “[t]he Examiner has not provided any rational underpinning as to how the Examiner derived his motivation for modifying Zoltan to include the above-cited missing claim limitations” (App. Br. 20-21), we reverse the rejection of claim 1, and also the rejection of independent claims 8 and 14, which recite the aforementioned limitations in commensurate form. Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of each independent claim on appeal, we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of each dependent claim over the same combination of references. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under § 103(a). REVERSED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation