Ex Parte Parees et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2013

11858931 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2013)

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