Ex Parte Saxena et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

11954739 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111954,739 12/12/2007 Abhishek Saxena
42425 7590 11/28/2016
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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.
50277-3321 4451
EXAMINER
KRAFT, SHIH-WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2016 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABHISHEK SAXENA, NEERJA BHATT, and
JAMES W. STAMOS
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 4--8, 12, 27, 30-34, 38, and 41--45,
which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Oracle International
Corporation. App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed April 16, 2014
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed October 10, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed August 11, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed
October 24, 2013 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed December
12, 2007 ("Spec.").
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention relates to a system and method, shown in Figure
2, for managing event monitors within a database and adjusting the amount
of notifications by those event monitors so as to achieve an effective balance
between probability of notification loss and available notification bandwidth,
and provide a better quality of service to database users. Spec. i-f 1; Abstract.
Appellants' Figure 2 shows a system that implements an event
processing architecture across multiple server instances. Figure 2 is
reproduced below.
FIG. 2
l11stance 224(1) instance 224(2) instance 224(N)
r··r~~;~~11 t:vent monitor 104
I/ c I s~
IL_ s s s I SGA I
c
s s s
!
L~~, _____ __, l----·----------····-------·--·-.. J
,--~~---~---
\~--------
global communications channel 212
---~~~~-~-·-·-·-·-~-~---~~~ ~~-~~·
+ /
regisirant
Figure 2 depicts a system that implements an example event
processing architecture across multiple instances. Spec. i-fi-1 6-7.
As shown in Appellants' Figure 2, a database system and eventing
infrastructure 200 includes multiple server instances 224(1 ), 224(2) ...
224(N). Each server instance has its own event monitor 104--a server
2
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
background process that receives and maintains grouping registration
requests from registrants, to produce event notifications. Spec. i-fi-f 12-13,
18-19. Event monitors associated with a grouping registration are
designated as grouping slaves (GSes), of which one GS is designated as a
grouping coordinator (GC) for the registration. Spec. i155. The GC is
responsible for sending notifications to registrants, where a notification
represents a group of events that satisfy one or more grouping criteria. Spec.
i-fi-f 18-19, 55.
Representative Claim
Claims 1, 27, and 38 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A computer-implemented method for communicating
notifications between a plurality of server instances in a multi-
server-instance system, comprising:
registering a registrant to receive notifications of events
that occur after completing said registering, wherein said
notifications are generated by a coordinator process among a
plurality of processes executing on said multi-server-instance
system, wherein at least one process of said plurality of
processes executes on each server instance of said plurality of
server instances;
wherein said registering a registrant includes receiving
one or more grouping criteria for grouping a plurality of events
into said notifications;
in response to said registering a registrant,
[l(i)] on each server instance of said plurality of
server instances, selecting a slave process, of said
plurality of processes, that is executing on said each
server instance to group events for said registrant,
thereby forming a set of selected slave processes to group
events for said registrant;
[l(ii)] among the set of selected slave processes of
said plurality of processes, selecting a specific selected
3
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
slave process as said coordinator process to send said
notifications to said registrant;
according to said grouping criteria, each selected slave
process in said set of selected slave processes grouping said
plurality of events for said notifications, wherein [2] each
selected slave process in said set of selected slave processes
grouping said plurality of events for said notifications includes,
for each notification of said notifications,
grouping a respective subset of events from said
plurality of events for said each notification according to
said grouping criteria into partial grouped event data;
and
said coordinator process generating said notifications
based on said partial grouped event data from said each selected
slave process and sending said notifications to said registrant.
App. Br. 23-24 (Claims Appendix) (brackets and numbering added).
Novik et al.
Bauer et al.
Evidence Considered
US 6,275,957 Bl
US 7,664,125 Bl
Examiner's Re} ections3
Aug. 14, 2001
Feb. 16,2010
(1) Claims 1, 4--8, 12, 27, 30-34, 38, and 41--45 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 2--6.
3 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection
of claims 1, 4--8, 12, 27, 30-34, 38, and 41--45 (Final Act. 6-7) in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 39). Additionally, claims 1, 4--8, 12, 27, 30-34,
38, and 41--45 stand objected to due to informalities. Final Act. 7-8.
However, claim objections are petitionable, not appealable, matters and
generally are not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See MPEP § § 1002
and 1201.
4
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
(2) Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 41, 42, 44, and
45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bauer
and Novik. Final Act. 8--41.
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issues on appeal are:
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4--8, 12, 27,
30-34, 38, and 41--45 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to
comply with the written description requirement. In particular, the issue
turns on whether Appellants' Specification describes "grouping a respective
subset of events from said plurality of events for said each notification
according to said grouping criteria into partial grouped event data," as
recited in Appellants' independent claim 1 and similarly recited in
independent claims 27 and 38 (emphasis added). App Br. 6-10, 24; Reply
Br. 2--4. 4
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12,
27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bauer and Novik. In particular, the issue turns on whether
the combination of Bauer and Novik discloses or suggests the following
limitations of Appellants' independent claims 1, 27, and 38:
(i) the "selecting" limitation ("each server instance of said
plurality of server instances, selecting a slave process ... [and]
among the set of selected slave processes of said plurality of
processes, selecting a specific selected slave process as said
coordinator process"),
4 We count Reply Brief pages (which are not numbered) starting from the
first page.
5
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
(ii) the "grouping" limitation ("grouping a respective subset of
events from said plurality of events for said each notification
according to said grouping criteria into partial grouped event
data").
App Br. 11-21; Reply Br. 4--8.
ANALYSIS
§ 112, First Paragraph Rejection of
Claims 1, 4-8, 12, 27, 30-34, 38, and 41-45
The Examiner finds Appellants' Specification fails to disclose
"grouping a respective subset of events from said plurality of events for said
each notification according to said grouping criteria into partial grouped
event data," as recited in independent claims 1 and 27. Final Act. 3-6
(emphasis added); Ans. 39--47.
Appellants contend the Specification teaches that each slave process
groups events for each notification into a partial group of events-also
called partial grouped event data-and sends the partial grouped event data
to the coordinator process. App. Br. 7-9 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 18, 20, 55, 58, 63-
64, 73, 82); Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants further cite paragraphs 18, 20, 49-
54, and 58 of the originally filed Specification to show grouping events
according to grouping criteria as recited in claims 1 and 27. App. Br. 8-9
(citing Spec. i-fi-f 18, 20, 49-54, 58); Reply Br. 2--4.
We agree with Appellants. Paragraphs 49-54 of Appellants'
Specification explicitly teach grouping criteria examples, and paragraphs 18,
55, and 58 of Appellants' Specification teach each slave process (event
monitor grouping slave GS) groups a subset of events for each notification
into partial grouped event data according to grouping criteria. See Spec.
6
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
ilil I 8 ("a single notification that represents a group of events that each
satisfies one or more grouping criteria"), 49-55, 58 ("sending messages
containing partially grouped data of events (also called partial group of
events) from GSes to a GC ... a partial group is grouped data of events.").
For the reasons set forth above, we find error in the Examiner's
written description rejection. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
written description rejection of claims 1, 4--8, 12, 27, 30-34, 38, and 41--45.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34,
38, 41, 42, 44, and 45 based on Bauer and Novik
With respect to independent claim 1 and similarly, independent claims
27 and 38, the Examiner finds Bauer teaches a method and apparatus
including Appellants' claimed "set of selected slave processes to group
events for said registrant" in the form of nodes in a communication tree or
database domain, the nodes used to monitor events for a registered
subscriber in accordance with a subscriber's specified filter. Final Act. 9,
11-13 (citing Bauer 3:25-32, 8:1-12, 8:57---65, 12:13-18, Figs. 8A-8B). In
addition, the Examiner finds Bauer teaches Appellants' claimed "coordinator
process" selected from among the set of selected slave processes, in the form
of an indication consolidator node used to send event notifications from all
domain nodes to the subscriber. Id. at 13-15 (citing Bauer 3:21-25, 11:64--
12:22).
The Examiner acknowledges Bauer does not explicitly disclose
Appellants' claimed "grouping a respective subset of events from said
plurality of events for said each notification according to said grouping
criteria into partial grouped event data," but relies on Novik for teaching
7
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
these features to support the conclusion obviousness. Id. at 18-19 (citing
Novik 3:55--4:13, 10:19-35, 11:35--45, 11:49-12:1, Figs. 4 and 5A).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding Bauer
and Novik. In particular, Appellants argue neither Bauer nor Novik teaches
or suggests (1) the "selecting" limitation, and (2) the "grouping" limitation,
as reproduced below:
1. registering a registrant to receive notifications of events
that occur after completing said registering ... in
response to said registering a registrant,
on each server instance of said plurality of server
instances, selecting a slave process, of said plurality of
processes, that is executing on said each server instance
to group events for said registrant, thereby forming a set
of selected slave processes to group events for said
registrant; [and]
among the set of selected slave processes of said
plurality of processes, selecting a specific selected slave
process as said coordinator process to send said
notifications to said registrant; and
2. each selected slave process in said set of selected slave
processes grouping said plurality of events for said
notifications includes, for each notification of said
notifications,
grouping a respective subset of events from said
plurality of events for said each notification according to
said grouping criteria into partial grouped event data.
App Br. 11-21; Reply Br. 4--8.
With respect to the "selecting" limitation of claim 1, Appellants
contend Bauer fails to disclose selecting on each server instance a slave
process to group events for a registrant thereby forming a set of selected
slave processes, and then selecting a specific slave process-from the set of
8
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
selected slave processes-to be a coordinator process. App. Br. 13. In
particular, Appellants argue Bauer's indication consolidator is not a
coordinator process as claimed because Bauer's "indication consolidator is
the generator of the communication tree" of nodes, and is, therefore,
established before identifying nodes (slave processes) for inclusion in the
communication tree. App. Br. 15 (citing Bauer 13:25-32, 14:22-29).
According to Appellants, "there is no longer any need in Bauer for selecting
a specific node/entity (or slave process under the Final Office Action's
analogies) from the nodes/entities in the communication structure to be the
consolidator" because "the indication consolidator is already established as
the consolidator before any nodes or components are included in the
communication structure." App. Br. 14. As such, Appellants argue Bauer
teaches away from the approach of claim 1 because Bauer discloses "the
coordinator process [is] selected before registering occurs" and "before the
communication tree is generated or constructed." Reply Br. 8; App. Br. 17.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 47---64. Therefore, we
adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For
additional emphasis, we note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2007). The term "slave process" is not explicitly defined in
9
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
Appellants' Specification, but is described generally in a non-limiting
fashion as follows:
Within a database system, many available classes of events
occur .... [A]n event monitor, in the form of a background
process, can be used to send a notification for each of the various
registered events .... In an embodiment, a database system and
eventing infrastructure comprises a plurality of instances. An
instance comprises a set of operating system processes and
memory structures that interact with data storage . ... [A]
notification server background process known as an event
monitor sends notifications for each of various registered events.
. . . A grouping registration will be associated with an event
monitor slave Son each instance (shown in FIG. 2 as a grouping
slave or GS).
Spec. i-fi-12, 12-13, 55 (emphasis added). In other words, the term "slave
process" is a "background process" executing in a "set of operating system
processes and memory structures that interact with data storage" (a server
instance). Id. at i-f 12.
Based on Appellants' Specification, the Examiner has broadly
interpreted the term "slave process" as encompassing Bauer's node
functionality. Ans. 51-55; Final Act. 11-13 (citing Bauer 2:45---65, 3:25-32,
8:1-12 and 57---65, 12:13-18, Figs. 8A-8B). We find the Examiner's
interpretation reasonable and consistent with Appellants' Specification. As
such, we agree with the Examiner that Bauer teaches a set of slave processes
as recited in claim 1. Ans. 51-55; Final Act. 11-13. Bauer's node
functionality---executing on a data storage system and monitoring events in
a communication structure-is commensurate with the broad description of
"slave process" that is "executing on a server instance" in Appellants'
10
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
Specification. Ans. 51-55 (citing Bauer 3:28-32, 12:6-15); Final Act. 11-
13 (citing Bauer 2:46-51, 8:44--48).
As further recognized by the Examiner, Bauer's slave processes
(nodes) monitor events and fire event indications occurring on each node in
accordance with requests by particular subscribers, thereby teaching a set of
selected slave processes to group events for a registrant/subscriber as
required by claim 1. Ans. 51-52 (citing Bauer 3:28-32, 12:43--45); Final
Act. 11-13 (citing Bauer 2:56-57, 8:42--48 and 59---61, 9:32-33, 12:13-18).
Moreover, Bauer discloses a single node from all nodes in the domain
is selected as an indication consolidator node that "asks other nodes in the
domain to report to it" (see Bauer 12: 13-14), thereby teaching or at least
suggesting a coordinator process selected from a previously-selected set of
slave processes as required by claim 1. Final Act. 13-15 (citing Bauer 2 :48-
51, 3 :21-23 ("selecting another one of said plurality of nodes as said new
indication consolidator node." (emphasis added)), 12: 1-22 (the indication
consolidator "asks other nodes in the domain to report to it any event
indications occurring on their respective nodes," "may be characterized as a
role that may be assumed by any node in the domain," and "may change if
the selected indication consolidator node fails.")); Ans. 52-53. Bauer
therefore discloses selecting a specific selected slave process as said
coordinator process, as claimed.
Bauer further teaches if a registered client determines an indication
consolidator is unavailable, another one of the plurality of nodes is selected
as an indication consolidator. See Bauer 3: 19-23; see also Final Act. 13-14
(citing Bauer 2:44--3 :32). Bauer therefore discloses a coordinator
process/indication consolidator is selected after registering the client,
11
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
contrary to Appellants' contention that "Bauer is actually requiring that the
coordinator process be selected before registering occurs." Reply Br. 8.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Bauer teaches and
suggests the "selecting" limitation recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
independent claims 27 and 38. Ans. 51-55.
With respect to the "grouping" limitation recited in claim 1,
Appellants argue although "Novik may teach a component ('event-filtering
definition') that might hypothetically be used as grouping criteria during
grouping of events," Novik's filtering "does not require grouping of events
[and] ... imposes no constraint as to which notification has which events."
Reply Br. 4--5. Thus, according to Appellants, Novik does not teach or
suggest grouping a respective subset of events from a plurality of events for
each notification according to grouping criteria into partial grouped event
data, as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 4---6; App. Br. 18-21.
We disagree. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Novik teaches
grouping a subset of events, from a plurality of events for each notification,
according to grouping criteria into partial grouped event data, as recited in
claim 1. 5 Ans. 60-63; Final Act. 18-19 (citing Novik 3:43--4:60, 10:19-35,
11:35--45, 11:49-12: 15). Specifically, Novik teaches that "events are
compared with the event-filtering definitions to identify the events that are to
be reported to the subscriber programs." See Novik 4:5-8. In Novik,
5 We note the claimed "partial grouped event data" merely designates a
partial group of events in Appellants' Specification. See Spec. i-f 5 8
("sending messages containing partially grouped data of events (also called
partial group of events) from GSes to a GC for every grouping registration.
For a given grouping registration, a partial group is grouped data of events,
for that registration." (emphasis added)).
12
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
"events that satisfy one or more of the event-filtering definitions are reported
to the corresponding subscriber programs" by "transmitting notifications of
events." See Novik 4:9--11, 3:56-57. Thus, Novik's event-filtering
definitions teach grouping criteria for grouping events for each notification
as required by claim 1. Ans. 60-63; see also Novik 11:55-12:1 (discussing
grouping of breach events according to building number and entrance
number criteria, to report security breaches for specific locations).
Appellants also argue Novik does not disclose that "each server
instance groups a subset of events into partial grouped event data used by a
coordinator process to generate notifications to a registrant," as recited in
claim 1; rather, Novik teaches a registrant "can define a subset of possible
events to receive reports ... [which] only shows that an event subscriber
does not wish to receive all possible events but only a subset of possible
events." App. Br. 20 (citing Novik 11 :35--45); see also Reply Br. 6. We are
unpersuaded by Appellants' argument because the rejection of the
"grouping" limitation is based on a combination of Bauer and Novik. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, the Examiner
asserts Bauer teaches event grouping by slave processes executing on each
server instance, and a coordinator process generating notifications for a
registrant. Ans. 59 (citing Bauer 2:59--61, 11 :60-12:6, 12:62---63, 21 :48-
53); Final Act. 13-15, 17. The Examiner asserts Novik teaches grouping a
subset of events into partial grouped event data based on grouping criteria.
Final Act. 18-19 (citing Novik 3:43--4:60, 10:19--35, 11:35--45, 11:49--
12: 15). As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that Bauer teaches
slave and coordinator processes as claimed, and Novik teaches grouping a
subset of events into partial grouped event data according to grouping
13
Appeal2015-000770
Application 11/954,739
criteria. Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner's findings as to the combined teachings of Bauer and Novik. Ans.
61---62; Final Act. 17-19.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection
of independent claim 1, and similarly, independent claims 27 and 38, and
their respective dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 30, 31, 33, 34, 41, 42, 44, and
45, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 21.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4--8, 12, 27, 30-34, 38, and 41--45
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We also conclude Appellants have
not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 27,
30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 4--
8, 12, 27, 30-34, 38, and 41--45 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and
AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 27, 30, 31,
33, 34, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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-IN-PART
14