Ex Parte Doshi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2018

13369990 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/369,990
146568 7590
Entit Software LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
02/09/2012 Lyric Pankaj Doshi
06/28/2018
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.
82850166 4640
EXAMINER
SYED,FARHANM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2018 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):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LYRIC P ANKAJ DOSHI and FINALE DOSHI-VELEZ
Appeal2016-005668
Application 13/369,990 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON J. CHUNG, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to assessing storage size in a database.
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented process comprising:
sampling a subset of cells of a compressed database;
assessing cell raw storage sizes of the sampled cells; and
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2016-005668
Application 13/369,990
assessing a database raw storage size of the compressed
database based on the assessment of the cell raw storage sizes.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hankin (US 7,895,247 B2; issued Feb.
22, 2011) and Tarin (US 2008/0059492 Al; published Mar. 6, 2008). Final
Act. 5-16.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not
to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, and 11
The Examiner finds that cells are defined as the intersection of a
record (row) and field (column) and typically store the value for a field
parameter for a particular database record. Ans. 2 (citing Spec. i-f 2). The
Examiner finds Hankin teaches consulting the first data block of each data
file in each tablespace to determine the free space associated with that data
file and aggregating the results, which the Examiner maps to the limitations
of claims 1, 6, and 10 except for the limitation "compressed." Ans. 3 (citing
Hankin, 4:65-5:65). The Examiner finds Tarin teaches "compressed"
databases and raw data. Ans. 3 (citing Tarin i-fi-120, 70-72). The Examiner
concludes a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined
Hankin and Tarin to provide sufficient available storage space when
expanding the compressed data. Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner finds the
2
Appeal2016-005668
Application 13/369,990
limitations in dependent claims 7 and 11 are incorporated into the rejection
of claims 1, 6, and 10. Ans. 9-10.
Appellants argue Hankin and Tarin fail to teach "cells" and
"sampling" as recited in claims 1, 6, and 10 because Rankin's data object is
not "cells" and Hankin fails to gather data from a representative subset of a
larger group to teach "sampling." App. Br. 10-11. Appellants also argue
Hankin does not teach all the limitations claimed, makes no distinction
between compressed and uncompressed data, and a person having ordinary
skill in the art would not have combined Hankin and Tarin. Id. at 11-12.
And Appellants argue the cited portions of Hankin and Tarin fail to teach the
limitations recited in claims 7 and 11. We disagree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Hankin teach a database table with rows and
columns (i.e., cells). Ans. 3 (citing Hankin, 5:15-5:65, Fig. 3). In addition,
the cited portions of Hankin relied upon by the Examiner teach consulting
the first data block of each data file in each tablespace (i.e., "sampling") to
determine the free space associated with that data file and aggregating the
results, which teaches the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 10 except for the
limitation "compressed." Ans. 3 (citing Hankin, 4:65-5:65). The cited
portions of Tarin relied upon by the Examiner teach compressed databases
and raw data. Ans. 3 (citing Tarin i-fi-120, 70-72).
We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Hankin and Tarin to provide
sufficient available storage space when expanding the compressed data.
Final Act. 8-9. Thus, the Examiner provided articulated reasoning with
rational underpinnings to support the motivation to combine the teachings of
Hankin and Tarin (see In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
3
Appeal2016-005668
Application 13/369,990
Additionally, the cited portions of Hankin relied upon by the
Examiner teach consulting the first data block of each data file in each
tablespace to determine the free space associated with that data file and
aggregating (i.e., aggregator for aggregating the cell storage size to yield an
aggregate that gets scaled by a scaler to yield the database storage size) the
results, which teaches the limitation "an aggregator for aggregating the cell
raw storage sizes to yield an aggregate raw storage size for the cell subset;
and a scaler to scale the aggregate raw storage size to yield the database raw
storage size" recited in claim 7 (and similarly recited in claim 11 ).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 10,
and 11.
Claims 2-4, 8, 12-14, 17, and 19
The Examiner finds Rankin's configurable threshold teaches
"confidence level" recited in claims 2, 12, 14, 17, and 19. Ans. 4, 13 (citing
Hankin, 5:15-25, 5:45-50 6:64---67, 7:5-15). The Examiner finds Rankin's
sampling is "random" as recited in claims 2, 8, and 12. Ans. 4, 10, 11
(citing Hankin, 5:15-25, 5:45-50 6:64--67, 7:5-15).
Appellants argue the cited portions of Hankin fail to teach
"confidence level" because a Rankin's "configurable threshold" does not
meet this limitation. Appellants also argue the cited portions of Hankin and
Tarin fail to teach "random" sampling as recited in claims 2, 8, and 12. App.
Br. 17-18. We agree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Hankin teach determining a threshold for free
space (i.e., Rankin's configurable threshold), whereas the claims require
determining a threshold for sampling (i.e., the claimed "confidence level" as
recited in claims 2, 14, 17, and 19 and similarly recited in claim 12); put
4
Appeal2016-005668
Application 13/369,990
another way, the cited portions of Hankin fail to teach "confidence level."
See Ans. 4, 13 (citing Hankin, 5:15-25, 5:45-50 6:64--67, 7:5-15).
Moreover, the cited portions of Hankin relied upon by the Examiner teach
consulting the first data block of each data file in each tablespace to
determine the free space associated with that data file and aggregating the
results, which fails to teach "random" as recited in claims 2, 8, and 12; stated
differently, the cited portions of Hankin teach non-random. Ans. 4, 10, 11
(citing Hankin, 5:15-25, 5:45-50 6:64--67, 7:5-15).
Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2; claim 13 depends from claim 12.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2--4, 8,
12-14, 17, and 19.
Claim 5
The Examiner finds Hankin is directed to determining usage of space
in a database and Tarin is directed to clustered access to as many columns as
possible based on constrained amount of disk space. Ans. 8-9.
Appellants argue the cited portions of Hankin fail to teach wherein
"the assessing of cell raw storage sizes includes decompressing the sampled
cells without decompressing other cells of the database." App. Br. 15-16.
We agree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Hankin do not teach or suggest decompression.
See Hankin, 4:55---62, 5: 10-25, 5:47-50, 7: 1-10. The cited portions of
Hankin and Tarin fail to teach a partial decompression of the database
without decompressing the remainder of the database. See Hankin, 4:55---62,
5:10-25, 5:47-50, 7:1-10; Tarin i-fi-120, 70-72. Therefore, the cited portions
fail to teach "wherein the assessing of cell raw storage sizes includes
5
Appeal2016-005668
Application 13/369,990
decompressing the sampled cells without decompressing other cells of the
database" as recited in claim 5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5.
Claim 9
The Examiner finds Rankin's configurable threshold teaches "less
than 10% of the cells of the database are decompressed to assess the
database raw storage size." recited in claim 9. Ans. 11-12 (citing Hankin,
4:55---62, 5: 10-25, 5:47-50, 7: 1-10).
Appellants argue the cited portions of Hankin fail to teach "less than
10% of the cells of the database are decompressed to assess the database raw
storage size." App. Br. 18-19. We agree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Hankin fail to teach "less than 10% of the cells
of the database are decompressed to assess the database raw storage size," as
recited in claim 9. Although Tarin mentions 10%, Tarin's teaching of 10%
is in the context of compressing data to occupy as little as 10% of its original
space (i.e., the overall compression ratio) rather than decompressing "less
than 10% of the cells of the database" as required by claim 9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9.
Claims 15, 18, and 20
The Examiner finds Rankin's configurable threshold teaches
"confidence level" recited in claims 2, 14, 17, and 19 (and similarly recited
in claim 12). Ans. 14--15 (citing Hankin, 5:45-50, 6:64---67, 7:5-15).
Appellants argue the cited portions of Hankin fail to teach a
"variance" that is calculated based on previously sampled cells because
Rankin's configurable threshold does not meet this limitation. We agree
with Appellants.
6
Appeal2016-005668
Application 13/369,990
The cited portions of Hankin teach determining a threshold for free
space (i.e., Rankin's configurable threshold), whereas the claims require
determining a threshold for sampling (i.e., the claimed "variance" as recited
in claims 15, 18, and 20); put another way, the cited portions of Hankin fail
to teach "variance." See Ans. 14--15 (citing Hankin, 5:45-50, 6:64--67, 7:5-
15).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15,
18, and 20.
Claim 16
The Examiner finds Rankin's configurable threshold teaches "average
cell raw storage size." recited in claim 16. Ans. 16 (citing Hankin, 5:1-5,
emphasis added).
Appellants argue the cited portions of Hankin fail to teach "average."
App. Br. 18-19. We agree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Hankin fail to teach an "average" recited in
claim 16. Ans. 16 (citing Hankin, 5:1-5).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, 10, and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-5, 8, 9, and
12-20 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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7