Erdogan, Ozgun Ali. et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 15, 202013345620 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2020) 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. 13/345,620 01/06/2012 Ozgun Ali Erdogan 13768.3672 1022 47973 7590 04/15/2020 WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT 60 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE SUITE 1000 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 EXAMINER GURMU, MULUEMEBET ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/15/2020 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): Docketing@wnlaw.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OZGUN ALI ERDOGAN and SUMEDH SUHAS PATHAK Appeal 2019-001269 Application 13/345,620 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 5–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CITUS DATA BILGI ISLEMLERI TICARET A.S. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-001269 Application 13/345,620 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to a distributed database with modular blocks and associated log files. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system, comprising: a master node; and a plurality of worker nodes controlled by the master node, wherein each worker node stores 25 or more modular blocks of distributed database partitions, wherein each modular block holds a segment of data associated with the distributed database partitions, and wherein each modular block of the distributed database partitions has a size of 5G bytes or less and has an associated log file to record changes associated with the distributed database partition; wherein the master node and the plurality of worker nodes are commodity hardware servers that communicate over a distributed network utilizing standard network connections and protocols; and wherein the master node collects statistics about data in the modular blocks and uses the statistics to optimize a database query. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Lindahl Sim Aupperle US 2012/0150819 A1 US 2002/0133491 A1 US 2012/0159627 A1 June 14, 2012 Sept. 19, 2002 June 21, 2012 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, and 5–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindahl, Sim, and Aupperle. Final Act. 2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-001269 Application 13/345,620 3 ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See id.; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Rejection under §103 Appellant contends that the combination of Lindahl, Sim, and Aupperle fail to teach or suggest “wherein the master node collects statistics about data in the modular blocks and uses the statistics to optimize a database query,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 3–4. Specifically, Appellant contends that Lindahl ¶ 378 discloses a “separate machine (Logger Server 1928) to collect statistics, but does not contemplate the claimed master node collecting statistics.” Id. at 4. Appellant further contends that Lindahl ¶ 436 does not disclose “using statistics to optimize a data query,” as this paragraph merely refers to “site tags” which are “irrelevant to the claim.” Id. We agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds that Lindahl ¶ 436 teaches “the query according to the search database.” Ans. 6; Final Act. 3 (identical). Notably, the Examiner’s findings omit any reference to the claimed “optimize a database query.” Nor can we find any reference to using statistics to optimizing a database query in the Examiner’s cited paragraph: The second line of every search results, such as result item 2222, contains a second set of tags call “site tags”. Site tags, when selected, present to the user information about the Appeal 2019-001269 Application 13/345,620 4 result site itself. The following includes, but is not limited, the list of site tags 2302, 2404[.] Lindahl ¶ 436. Moreover, we find the Examiner fails to establish that Lindahl ¶ 436 teaches or suggests the entire limitation of “us[ing] the statistics to optimize a database query” recited in claim 1. As indicated above, Lindahl teaches displaying “site tags” as the “second line of every search result[]” in order to provide “information about the result site itself.” Id. (emphasis added). A search result is the product of a database query, not the query itself. The Examiner fails to explain how the product of a database query teaches or suggests that the database query was optimized using statistics about data stored in the modular blocks of the database as required by claim 1. The Examiner has not relied on any of the other cited references to teach this element. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 and its corresponding dependent claims. We do not reach Appellant’s further allegations of error because we find the issue discussed above to be dispositive of the obviousness rejection of all the pending claims. Rejection under § 112, second paragraph In the Answer, the Examiner newly rejects claim 2 as indefinite because claim 2 recites “a database query” while claim 1 also recites “a database query.” Ans. 3. Appellant disagrees because “[t]he query referenced in claim 1 can be different than the query referenced in claim 2.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. Claim 2 introduces a new term that is identical to a term in claim 1, without relying on that claim 1 term for Appeal 2019-001269 Application 13/345,620 5 antecedent basis. Claim 2 references a database query that “run[s] in parallel across the plurality of worker nodes.” It is unclear how, or even whether, claim 2’s query relates to the optimized database query of claim 1. This dual use of the same term is therefore indefinite but can be easily corrected in further prosecution. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5–20 Lindahl, Sim, Aupperle 1, 2, 5–20 2 112 ¶ 2 Indefiniteness 2 Overall Outcome 2 1, 5–20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation