Ex Parte Bhide et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2014

11948435 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2014)

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.
11/948,435 11/30/2007 Manish A. Bhide IN920070077US2 2729
48062 7590 02/25/2014
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
1175 Post Road East
2nd Floor
Westport, CT 06880
EXAMINER
SINGH, AMRESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2014 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 MANISH A. BHIDE, SAM S. LIGHTSTONE,
LAURENT S. MIGNET, SUMIT NEGI,
and DANIELE C. ZILIO
____________

Appeal 2011-008546
Application 11/948,435
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008546
Application 11/948,435

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to techniques for automated design of
range partitioned tables for relational databases (see Spec. 2:6-16). Claims 1
and 13 are representative and read as follows:
1. A computer program product comprising a
computer useable recordable medium including computer usable
program code for recommending range-partitioned tables in a
relational database, said computer program product including:
computer usable program code for obtaining a workload
specification for said database, said workload specification
detailing specific queries and a frequency of execution of each of
said queries;
computer usable program code for obtaining a catalog
specification for said database, said catalog specification
detailing a definition of tables and columns within said tables;
computer usable program code for obtaining a set of
partitions for said database;
computer usable program code for identifying, based at
least in part on said obtaining steps, a plurality of candidate ones
of said tables for said database, said candidate ones of said tables
having a plurality of candidate ones of said columns; and
computer usable program code for allocating at least one
chosen column for each of said candidate ones of said tables, to
obtain a set of partitioned tables and a set of appropriate
partitions for each of said partitioned tables, wherein said
allocation of said at least one chosen column for each of said
candidate tables is based at least on extracting natural ranges
present in said workload.
Appeal 2011-008546
Application 11/948,435

3
13. A system for recommending range-partitioned
tables in a relational database, said system comprising:
means for obtaining a workload specification for said
database, said workload specification detailing specific queries
and a frequency of execution of each of said queries;
means for obtaining a catalog specification for said
database, said catalog specification detailing a definition of
tables and columns within said tables;
means for obtaining a set of partitions for said database;
means for identifying, based at least in part on said
obtaining steps, a plurality of candidate ones of said tables for
said database, said candidate ones of said tables having a
plurality of candidate ones of said columns; and
means for allocating at least one chosen column for each
of said candidate ones of said tables, to obtain a set of partitioned
tables and a set of appropriate partitions for each of said
partitioned tables, wherein said allocation of said at least one
chosen column for each of said candidate tables is based at least
on extracting natural ranges present in said workload.

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-13 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-6
of co-pending Application 11/948,360 (now U.S. Patent No. 7,917,512 B2,
issued Mar. 29, 2011). (See Ans. 4-5).
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter. (See Ans. 5).
Appeal 2011-008546
Application 11/948,435

4
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lohman (US 2004/0122845 A1) and Zait (US
2005/0038784 A1).
1
(See Ans. 6-11).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner has erred.
Non-statutory Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants state that “the cited rejections are provisional double
patenting rejections and propose to defer resolution of the double patenting
rejections until the allowable subject matter has been determined” (App. Br.
5). Thus, we do not reach the merits of the Examiner’s double patenting
rejections because this issue is not ripe for decision by the Board. Panels
have the flexibility to reach or not reach provisional double-patenting
rejections. See Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because:
[t]he cited claim transforms a workload specification, a catalog
specification and a set of partitions for a database to derive a set
of partitioned tables and a set of appropriate partitions for each
of the partitioned tables and therefore provides a useful,
concrete and tangible result.

1
Claims 6 and 12 have been objected to, but indicated as allowable. The
only remaining rejection for these claims is a provisional rejection under the
judicially created doctrine of non-statutory double patenting. (See Final Rej.
7).
Appeal 2011-008546
Application 11/948,435

5
(App. Br. 6). Appellants further state that “the means for performing the
cited steps include hardware and/or a general-purpose computer configured
to perform the cited steps, as supported, for example, on page 10, line 16 to
page 12, line 25 of the originally filed disclosure.” (Id.).
We agree with Appellants’ contention that these claims are directed to
statutory subject matter. Contrary to the Examiner’s position (Ans. 12), the
means for performing the recited functions do not include abstract software
per se and are described as systems and components configured or
programed for performing the recited functions. Although we do not agree
with Appellants’ arguments to the effect that a system is automatically
statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we do agree with
Appellants’ contention that the reasoning set forth by the Examiner does not
demonstrate that claim 13 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 13 is not sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims, we disagree
with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans. 12-21) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.
Claims 1, 7, and 13
We specifically agree with the Examiner (Ans. 12-13) that the cited
portion of Zait in paragraph 90 discloses optimizing queries using an
optimizer for accessing partition definition information during the
optimization process. In fact, contrary to Appellants’ contentions (App. Br.
Appeal 2011-008546
Application 11/948,435

6
7), paragraph 59 of Zait discusses range-based partitioning as another
partitioning model to be used in conjunction with partition pruning when a
database query optimizer accesses the definition. That is, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have performed similar optimization of range-based
tables in combination with Lohman (see also Ans. 15-17 (citing various
parts of Lohman for disclosing the claimed features)).
Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 7,
and 13.
Claims 2 and 8
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that the combination
of Lohman and Zait does not disclose or suggest the claimed “identifying an
intersection of (i) a set of the columns on which tables of a database are
suitable to be partitioned and (ii) a most frequently occurring set of the
columns; and identifying the candidate columns for each of the candidate
tables, from the intersection” (App. Br. 10). As stated by the Examiner,
Lohman was relied on to teach “based on said workload, selecting a most
frequently occurring set of columns” and “identifying an intersection of
(i) a set of the columns on which tables of a database are suitable to be
partitioned and (ii) a most frequently occurring set of the columns”
(Ans. 19 (citing ¶¶ [0022] and [0026])).
We also find the Examiner’s discussion that the structured query
language (SQL) statements and their occurrence frequency obtained within
the workload are known to include columns and constitute a most frequently
occurring set of columns (id.) to be reasonable. Additionally, contrary to
Appellants’ contentions (Reply Br. 9-10), the Examiner properly finds
Lohman’s use of database statistics, such as the number of distinct values in
Appeal 2011-008546
Application 11/948,435

7
a column, for partitioning the tables of database meets the claimed selecting
a set of columns based on the catalog specification defining tables columns
(Ans. 8-9 (citing Lohman, ¶¶ [0035] and [0039])). Similarly, we agree with
the Examiner conclusion that the best way Lohman’s tables are partitioned is
further suggested by Lohman’s discussion of the obtained workload and
identifying the optimum intersection to partition the columns (Ans. 19-20).
Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claims 2
and 8.
Claims 3-5, 9-11, and 13
Appellants argue the patentability of the remaining claims based on
their dependency from claims 1 and 7 (App. Br. 11), allowing these claims
to fall with their respective base claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
2. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1-5, 7-11, and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Lohman and Zait.
3. Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13 are not patentable.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2011-008546
Application 11/948,435

8
AFFIRMED

ELD