Ex Parte Schmitt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 2013

11149191 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 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. 11/149,191 06/10/2005 Winfried Schmitt 07781.0246-00 1300 60668 7590 11/26/2013 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER KUDDUS, DANIEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/26/2013 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 WINFRIED SCHMITT and RADIM SYKORA ___________ Appeal 2011-005922 Application 11/149,191 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JASON V. MORGAN, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005922 Application 11/149,191 2 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-21. App. Br. 5. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 were previously cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to an online transactional data processing (OLTP) system that includes an OLTP application program for processing the transactional data in a database, and a change log for storing a set of change documents that describe transformations performed on the transactional data by the OLTP application program. To correct a run of the OLTP application program, the set of change documents is used to re- establish the original state. A re-run of the OLTP application program may produce a new set of change documents used to at selectively overwrite change documents of the original run of the OLTP application. See generally Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative with a disputed limitation in italics: 1. An online transactional processing (OLTP) system, comprising: a relational database for storing transactional data; an OLTP application program for processing the transactional data, the OLTP application program generating a set of change documents for a run of the OLTP application program, wherein the set of change documents includes descriptions of transformations performed on the transactional data by the run of the OLTP application program; Appeal 2011-005922 Application 11/149,191 3 a mass storage device for storing the change documents; means for receiving a request for correction of a previous run of the OLTP application program; means for reading the set of change documents of the previous run from the mass storage device into a random access memory; means for inverting the transformations as described by the set of change documents of the previous run; means for initiating a renewed run of the OLTP application program to create a new set of change documents that are temporarily stored in the random access memory; means for identifying corresponding change documents of the previous and the renewed run that differ from each other; and means for overwriting at least a sub-set of the set of change documents of the previous run stored on the mass storage device by at least a sub-set of the new set of new change documents, wherein the means for overwriting overwrites only change documents of the previous run for which a differing corresponding change document of the new run is identified. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bohannon (U.S. Patent No. 6,374,264 B1; issued Apr. 16, 2002) and Johnson (U.S. Patent No. 5,813,009; issued Sept. 22, 1998). Ans. 3-10. Claims 7, 14, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bohannon, Johnson, and Balogh (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0254926 A1; published Dec. 16, 2004). Appeal 2011-005922 Application 11/149,191 4 CONTENTIONS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Bohannon teaches the recited features but fails to teach, inter alia, that the means for overwriting “overwrites only change documents of the previous run for which a differing corresponding change document of the new run is identified” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-7. The Examiner finds that Johnson teaches this and other missing features and articulates a reason for the combination of Bohannon and Johnson. Ans. 7-8. Appellants argue, inter alia, that Johnson fails to alleviate the above identified deficiency of Bohannon. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 3-4. 1 ISSUE A dispositive issue presented by Appellants’ arguments is: Has the Examiner erred in finding that Johnson (and hence the combination of Bohannon and Johnson) teaches “wherein the means for overwriting overwrites only change documents of the previous run for which a differing corresponding change document of the new run is identified” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred. The Examiner relies on Johnson for teaching an OLTP application that generates a set of change documents including descriptions of transformations performed by a run of the application. Ans. 7. The 1 We note that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues. We do not reach these issues, as this contention is dispositive of the appeal. Appeal 2011-005922 Application 11/149,191 5 Examiner relies on Bohannon for teaching a means for overwriting only change documents of a previous run of the application (Ans. 6) but relies on Johnson for teaching that such overwriting means only overwrites change documents “for which a differing corresponding change document of the new run is identified” (Ans. 7). Appellants contend that the portions of Johnson relied upon by the Examiner fail to teach this limitation. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 3-4. Specifically, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s various citations in Johnson relate to logging the purging of data or relate to deleting tables in a relational database and argues that such recitations fail to meet the disputed limitation such that the change documents are overwritten “for which a differing corresponding change document of the new run is identified.” Id. We agree. In other words, we agree that Johnson fails to disclose some form of test or comparison that determines whether an old change document is different from a new change document and only overwrites when such a difference is detected. In view of the above discussion, and on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Bohannon and Johnson teaches “wherein the means for overwriting overwrites only change documents of the previous run for which a differing corresponding change document of the new run is identified” as recited in independent claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 15 include similar limitations and are rejected for essentially the same reasons as claim 1. Dependent claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected over Bohannon, Johnson, and Balogh relying on Balogh for teachings of other limitations. Ans. 11-13. We are similarly persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 8 and 15 and of dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-21. Appeal 2011-005922 Application 11/149,191 6 DECISION For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. REVERSED kis