Ex Parte Cammert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 12, 2018

12929539 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/929,539 01/31/2011
23117 7590 10/16/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Cammert
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.
JAR-5135-35 8765
EXAMINER
HOLLAND, SHERYLL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2018 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL CAMMERT, CHRISTOPH HEINZ,
JURGEN KRAMER, and TOBIAS RIEMENSCHNEIDER
Appeal 2017-011487
Application 12/929,539 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILLAdministrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-16, 18, and 20-25, which constitute all pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real party in interest is identified as SOFTWARE AG, a corporation of
the country of Germany. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-011487
Application 12/929,539
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a complex event processing (CEP) engine for
processing CEP queries over data streams. Abstract, Spec. 1:5-7, 5:29-
6:27, Figs. 4, 6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal (emphasis added):
1. A system comprising at least one processor and a complex
event processing (CEP) engine for processing CEP queries over data
streams, the at least one processor controlling the system to:
parse a received CEP query into a logical query graph that is
independent of a plurality of data stream representation models;
translate the logical query graph into a physical query plan in
accordance with a selected data stream representation model from the
plurality of data stream representation models, the data stream
representation model selected based on preferences related to
processing resources used by the CEP engine, the data stream
representation model usable as a parameter in the translation
process; and
execute the translated physical query plan using the data stream
representation model selected from the plurality of data stream
representation models based on the logical query graph.
App. Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTI0NS 2
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected3 under 35 U.S.C. §
112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
2 The rejection of claims 1, 7, 13, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is
withdrawn. Ans. 29.
3 The rejection heading includes claim 17 and claim 28. Final Act. 14. The
context indicates claim 17 is cancelled and there is no claim 28. See Final
Act. 9; App. Br. 25-27 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2017-011487
Application 12/929,539
which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards
as the invention. Final Act. 9--13.
Claims 1-16, 18, and 20-25 are rejected4 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer "Continuous Queries over Data
Streams - Semantics and Implementation," 2007 "Kramer") in view of
Rosenthal (US 2009/0276367 Al; published November 5, 2009)
("Rosenthal"). Final Act. 14--10.
ANALYSIS
The § 112 (b) Re} ections
Regarding independent claims 1, 7, and 13, the Examiner finds a
complex event processing query (CEP) has not been defined in the claims
and "[ t ]he Specification lists a plurality of CEP processes but does not
clearly define which process the invention is directed toward." Final Act. 9--
10. The Examiner finds a "data stream representation model[]" is not
defined in the claims and "is unclear how a data stream representation model
is determined and how it is different from a data stream." Id. at 9. The
Examiner extends the rationale of the independent claim rejections to
identified dependent claims. Regarding dependent claims 5, and 11, the
Examiner finds it is unclear how a data representation model may be
changed during a "'CEP query."' Id. at 10. Regarding dependent claims 6,
12, and 18, the Examiner finds it is unclear how a data stream representation
model is changed from a first data stream representation model to a second
data stream representation model. Id. at 10-11. Regarding dependent claim
4 The rejection heading includes cancelled claim 17 and omits claim 25.
Final Act. 14. The context indicates claim 25 is intended. See Final Act. 31;
App. Br. 25-27 (Claims Appendix).
3
Appeal 2017-011487
Application 12/929,539
20, the Examiner finds it is unclear how a data stream representation model
may be selected "'in accordance with an operating criteria."' Id. at 11.
Regarding dependent claim 22, the Examiner finds it is unclear how the data
stream representation models are related to a "'CEP engine'". Id. at 12.
Regarding dependent claim 23, the Examiner finds it is unclear how a data
representation model represents an approach for executing a CEP query and
corresponding requirements. Id. at 12-13.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because the terms "complex event
processing query" and "'data stream representation model"' are defined and
refer to Appellants' arguments regarding the written description rejection5 of
§ 112(a). Id. at 10-12 (citing Spec. 3:21--4:15, 9:16-10:10). Appellants
argue the Examiner's rejections constitute an assertion that the claims should
further define ( and consequently narrow these terms) but breadth is never a
valid ground for an indefiniteness rejection. Id. at 12-13 (citing MPEP
2173.04).
In the Answer, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 7,
and 13, and notes no response is needed for claims 6, 11, 12, 18, 20, 22, and
23 as these claims are not argued. Ans. 30-31. The Examiner finds claim 1
is described at a very high level of detail and requests clarification and
explanation of how the disclosure supports the claimed subject matter. Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants note that the Examiner has withdrawn
the § 112(a) rejection which previously asserted lack of support for the
claimed features. Reply Br. 2-3 ( citing Ans. 29-30). Appellants
additionally argue the Specification supports and further explains the
5 This rejection is withdrawn. See fn.2.
4
Appeal 2017-011487
Application 12/929,539
claimed features. Id. at 3 (Spec. 7:25-28); see also App. Br. 11-12,
addressing the now withdrawn§ 112(a) rejection).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments and do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, 20, 22, and 23. In re Packard, 751 F.3d
1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The§ 103 Rejections
Appellants argue the Examiner errs by finding the combination of
Kramer and Rosenthal teaches the claim 1 ( and independent claims 7 and
13) limitations:
"translate the logical query graph into a physical query plan in
accordance with a selected data stream representation model from the
plurality of data stream representation models, the data stream
representation model selected based on preferences related to
processing resources used by the CEP engine, the data stream
representation model usable as a parameter in the translation process"
App. Br. 13-16.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Kramer teaches using
the data stream representation model as a parameter in a translation process.
App. Br. 13-16. According to Appellants, even assuming that Kramer
provides a general disclosure of processing data queries using data streams,
Kramer does not translate a logical query graph into a physical query plan
using the data stream representation model as a parameter in the translation
process, and Rosenthal is likewise deficient. Id. at 14--16 ( citing Kramer ,r,r
174, 175; Rosenthal ,r,r 88, 144--148, Fig. 3).
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Kramer teaches logical and
physical stream representations are derived from raw streaming data and
5
Appeal 2017-011487
Application 12/929,539
these representations constitute the claimed data stream representation
models. Ans. 34 (citing Kramer pp. 26, 27, 37). The Examiner finds
Kramer teaches a query optimization system in which a logical query plan
may be transformed into a physical query plan and, "[ s ]ince the user chooses
at the time of defining the query the data stream representation/schema to
use, the data stream representation is a parameter used in the translation
process." Id. at 34--36 (citing Kramer pp. 31, 34--35 174--175, Fig. 7.1).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue "the portion of [Kramer] relied
upon by the Examiner only describes converting different streams using
logical algebra and does not indicate that a data stream representation model
is used as a parameter in the translation process." Reply Br. 4. Appellants
argue, even assuming a particular data stream representation model forms a
basis as to how a particular data stream will operate, nothing in Kramer
indicates that a data stream representation model is used as a parameter
when translating a logical query graph into a physical query plan. Id. at 4--5.
Appellants further argue "although [Kramer] arguably suggests the
processing by introducing positive-negative and/or time interval elements,
[Kramer] does not pass the particular representation model to be translated
into executable queries." According to Appellants, "[Kramer] does not
translate the logical query graph into the physical query plan using the data
stream representation model as a parameter in the translating process." Id. at
5.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings, claim interpretation, and conclusions. On the
record before us, we find no persuasive arguments that the Examiner's
findings and claim interpretation are unreasonable, overbroad, or
6
Appeal 2017-011487
Application 12/929,539
inconsistent with Appellants' Specification. Claim terms in a patent
application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner's obviousness rejection
must be based on:
"[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." ... [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
As discussed, supra, regarding the § 112(b) rejection, Appellants
present broad claims. Appellants argue an unreasonably narrow view of the
teachings of Kramer as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art. Kramer is a comprehensive reference, describing inter alia, data
management and data streams. See, e.g., Kramer, Abstract iii, pp. 3-5, Sec.
1, 1.1 ). Kramer is identified as a doctoral thesis and includes more than two
hundred pages of description. Id. at vii.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 13.
Regarding dependent claim 6 (and claims 12, 18), which recite
"data elements of at least one data stream to be processed by the CEP query
are translated from a first data stream representation model to a second data
stream representation model," Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding
Kramer teaches this limitation. App. Br. at 17. According to Appellants,
Kramer uses different representation models ( e.g., positive-negative, time
7
Appeal 2017-011487
Application 12/929,539
interval) but Kramer is not translating data elements of a data stream from
one model to another. Id. (citing pp. 174--176).
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Kramer teaches CQL operators
include a stream-to-relation operator which converts the stream into a time-
varying relation, a relation-to relation operator which performs the
corresponding operation on the time-varying relation and a relation-to-
stream operator transforms the time-varying relation result back into a
stream. Id. at 37-38 (citing Kramer pages 39-40). The Examiner finds
Kramer teaches a logical stream may be converted into a physical stream
representation and back again using Kramer's query language. Id. The
Examiner finds Kramer further discloses that converters may be used to
translate a CEP query using a positive-negative approach (PNA) data stream
representation model to a time interval approach (TIA) data stream
representation model. Id. at 3 7 ( citing Kramer pages 17 4--17 5).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue Kramer's operators take one or
multiple streams directly as input and generate a stream as output, i.e.,
modifies "data elements" of a stream, but "[Kramer] fails to translate data
elements of a first data stream representation model to a second data stream
representation model." Reply Br. at 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims
6, 12, and 18.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Kramer teaches
dependent claim 21, which requires "the optimizer analyses operators
involved in the plurality of data streams and selects the data stream
representation model based on the involved operators and a rating of
8
Appeal 2017-011487
Application 12/929,539
properties based on supported data stream representation models." App. Br.
18. According to Appellants. Kramer describes different data stream
representation model approaches but Kramer does not select a data stream
representation model based on operators and ratings of properties of
supported data stream representation models. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Kramer teaches the claim 21
limitations. Ans. 39 (citing Kramer pp. 37, 174--175). The Examiner finds
"[Kramer] teaches that a logical query plan comprising a plurality of logical
operators is optimized producing a plurality of equivalent logical query
plans" and "[t]he query plans are analyzed based on a cost model and the
best plan is chosen for processing." Id. (citing Kramer page 31, Sec. 6.6).
The Examiner finds a user may construct the logical query plan using either
logical or physical operators and the derived logical or physical stream is
determined based on the operator algebra used. Id. (citing Kramer page 33,
Sec. 7.1, p 37, Sec. 7.2.4). The Examiner finds known data stream
representation models include PNA and TIA. Id. (citing Kramer pages 174--
17 5). According to the Examiner,
Id.
[ s ]ince a best query plan is determined based on a cost model during
optimization of the logical query plan (page 31) and the user specifies
the query and query plans using either logical or physical algebra
(page 33) and the derived logical or physical stream is determined by
the operator algebra (page 37), it follows that the operators are part of
the rating for determining a best query plan.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue Kramer describes using different
data stream representation model approaches, "[b Jut, Kramer does not select
a data stream representation model based on operators and ratings of
9
Appeal 2017-011487
Application 12/929,539
properties of supported data stream representation models." Reply Br. 7-8.
According to Appellants:
the Examiner is applying a portion of [Kramer] related to constructing
logical query plans, and then referencing a vague portion of [Kramer]
that describes known data stream representation models. Nothing in
[Kramer] reasonably teaches or suggests any analysis of operators
involved in a data stream such that a data stream representation model
is selected based on the ( analyzed) operators ( or ratings of properties of
data stream representation models).
That is, [Kramer] does not analyze individual operators and then
select a data stream representation model based on the operator, let
alone based on ratings of properties of supported data stream
representation models.
Id. at 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim
21.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Kramer teaches
dependent claim 23, which recites that "the plurality of data stream
representation models comprise one or more approaches for executing the
received CEP query, the one or more approaches corresponding to specific
requirements for executing the received CEP query by the CEP engine." Id.
at 19. According to Appellants, although Kramer teaches that a logical
query plan can be selected based on a cost and that the logical query plan
can be translated into a physical query plan, Kramer does not indicate that
the approach of a data stream representation model corresponds to specific
requirements for executing a CEP query (by a CEP engine). Id.
10
Appeal 2017-011487
Application 12/929,539
In the Answer, the Examiner finds "[Kramer] teaches that a physical
query plan is registered at the execution engine and the execution engine
integrates the plan with the system's global query graph, the execution
initiates data processing (i.e.[,] the plan is executed)." Ans. 40 (citing
Kramer page 31, Sec. 6.6). The Examiner finds a user may construct the
logical query plan using either logical or physical operators and the derived
logical or physical stream representation is determined based on the operator
algebra used. Id. at 40 ( citing Kramer, p 31, Sec 7 .1, p 3 7, Sec. 7 .2.4 ).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue "[ w ]hile [Kramer] arguably
describes logical or physical stream representations based on the operator
algebra that is used, [Kramer] does not indicate that an approach of a data
stream representation model corresponds to specific requirements of a CEP
query." Reply Br. 8. According to Appellants, Kramer describes using data
streams in database management systems, explains that a logical query plan
can be selected based on a cost model, and further explains that the logical
query plan can be translated into a physical query plan. Id. However,
according to Appellants, Kramer does not indicate that the approach of a
data stream representation model corresponds to specific requirements for
executing a CEP query (by a CEP engine). Id. at 8-9.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments and do not sustain the
rejection of claim 23. In particular, on the record before us, the Examiner
has not shown "the one or more approaches corresponding to specific
requirements for executing the received CEP query by the CEP engine."
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,
7, and 13 and dependent claims 6, 12, 18, and 21. We also sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 13-16, 20, 22, 24, and 25 as these
11
Appeal 2017-011487
Application 12/929,539
claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We do
not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 23.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5-7, 11-13,
17, 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16, 18, 20-22,
24, and 25 and reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 23 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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12