Erdogan, Ozgun Ali. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 15, 2020

13345620 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2020)

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