Ex Parte Schreter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

13290866 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/290,866 11/07/2011
64280 7590 03/31/2016
Mintz Levin/SAP
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
I van Schreter
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.
34874-824F01US 8465
EXAMINER
BETIT, JACOB F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroombos@mintz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IV AN SCHRETER, THORSTEN GLEBE, and
TOBIAS SCHEUER
Appeal2014-004948
Application 13/290,866
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-20. 1 Claims 3and12 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify SAP AG as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-004948
Application 13/290,866
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to a columnar database using virtual
file data objects. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer program product storing
instructions that, when executed by at least one programmable
processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to
perform operations comprising:
instantiating, in a columnar database, a plurality of virtual
files, the columnar database comprising a columnar data store
that persists tables of data contained therein to the plurality of
virtual files, each virtual file being stored in physical data storage
and a portion of which can be cached transiently in a persistence
layer intermediate the columnar data store and the physical data
storage, the virtual files each comprising a database object for
storing data records; and
processing, in the columnar database, operations using the
virtual files, wherein concurrent changes to virtual files resulting
from the operations of one transaction are isolated from changes
on the same virtual files resulting from the operations of other
transactions; and
truncating at least one virtual file for a first transaction
while at least one other transaction is being executed, the
truncated at least one virtual file being available to other
transactions prior to the first transaction committing.
REJECTIONS
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10,
11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vick et
al. (US 2009/0216990 Al, pub. Aug. 27, 2009) ("Vick") and Bata et al. (US
6,901,403 B 1, issued May 31, 2005) ("Bata"). (Final Act. 10-15.)
2
Appeal2014-004948
Application 13/290,866
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 3, 8, 9, 12,
and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vick, Bata,
and Maionchi et al. (US 7,890,469 Bl, issued Feb. 15, 2011) ("Maionchi").
(Final Act. 15-25.)
In an Advisory Action (filed Aug. 5, 2013) ("Adv. Act."), the
Examiner entered Appellants' amendments for purposes of Appeal, which
incorporated the limitation of claim 3 into claim 1, and of claim 12 into
claim 10, and cancelled claims 3 and 12. (Adv. Act.; Amendment and
Response to Final Office Action (filed July 22, 2013); App. Br. 17.) Thus,
the Examiner's ground for rejection of claims 3 and 12 as stated in the Final
Action, together with the ground for rejection of unamended claim 1 as
stated in the Final Rejection, are applicable to claims 1 and 10 as amended.
Therefore, as presented to us, and as at least implicitly agreed to by both the
Examiner and Appellants, this Appeal is from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--
11, and 13-20, which are all the pending claims, as unpatentable over Vick,
Bata, and Maionchi. (App. Br. 16; Ans. 10-12; Reply Br. 4.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue: 2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 6, 2013) ("App. Br."),
Reply Brief (filed Mar. 18, 2014) ("Reply Br."), Final Office Action (mailed
May 23, 2013) ("Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jan. 16,
2014) ("Ans.") for the respective details.
3
Appeal2014-004948
Application 13/290,866
Whether the combination of Vick, Bata, and Maionchi teaches or
suggests the limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 19. (App. Br. 13-
18.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments: we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 10-25)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-14), and we concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We emphasize the following.
In rejecting independent claims 1, 10, and 19, the Examiner relies on
the disclosure in Vick of a virtual configuration system which dynamically
instantiates configuration files in a database repository, stores configuration
entries in two separate memory locations, provides for modification of
configuration entries in the second location during run-time, provides for
caching of configuration data, and provides that "the replacement of the
virtual configuration file is atomic and provides full isolation." (Final Act.
10-12, 15-16, 19-20; Vick Abstract, Fig. 2, i-fi-f 7, 12, 15, 26, 31, 34, 38.)
The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Bata of a virtual file
system representation of data sources in databases that may be organized in
rows and columns, made up of hierarchical folders that may be used to
modify data, and which data may be cached. (Final Act. 12, 21; Bata
4
Appeal2014-004948
Application 13/290,866
Abstract, Figs. 1, 12, col. 1, 11. 26-29, col. 2, 11. 17-20, col. 6, 11. 14--18, col.
28, 11. 39--46, col. 32, 11. 15-20, col. 33, 11. 1-5.)
The Examiner further relies on the disclosure in Maionchi of a file
change log that tracks changes to files, from which data is read by multiple
applications simultaneously, during file operations such as truncation, and
which protects log data during such operations. (Final Act. 17, 22; Maionchi
Abstract, Fig. 9, col. 2, 11. 4--13, col. 3, 11. 32--45, col. 7, 11. 40--47, col. 9, 11.
40--45, col. 13, 11. 62-67, col. 14, 11. 25-38, col. 14, 1. 63---col. 15, 1. 6.)
The Examiner provides detailed findings as to the rationale for
combining these disclosures of Vick, Bata, and Maionchi to teach or suggest
the claim limitations at issue. (Final Act. 12-13, 17; Ans. 7-12.)
Referring to the first limitation of claims 1, 10, and 19, Appellants
argue, "Vick is silent as to each virtual file being stored in physical data
storage and a portion of the virtual files can be cached transiently in a
persistence layer intermediate a columnar data store and physical data
storage," and further argue that Bata does not teach using a "columnar
database." (App. Br. 15-16.) Appellants also argue, with respect to the
second limitation of claims 1, 10, and 19, "Vick fails to suggest that
transactions from one operation on a virtual file are isolated from a different
operation on the same virtual file." (App. Br. 15.) Finally, with respect to
the third limitation of claims 1 and 10, Appellants argue, "the reference[ s] in
Maionichi [sic] ... collectively fail to disclose or otherwise suggest the
specifically recited truncation operations." (App. Br. 16.)
These arguments are unpersuasive, as attacking references
individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the
5
Appeal2014-004948
Application 13/290,866
teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F .2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is whether the
combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the
patentee's invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCP A 1981 ). The arguments are also unpersuasive as
consisting of attorney's arguments and conclusory statements, which are
unsupported by factual evidence, and are entitled to little probative value. In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in finding the
combination of Vick, Bata, and Maionchi teaches or suggests the claim
limitations at issue. See (Final Act. 12-13, 17; Ans. 7-12.) In KSR, the
Court stated "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). A reason
to combine teachings from the prior art "may be found in explicit or implicit
teachings within the references themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of
those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved."
WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'! Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (internal citation omitted). Appellants have not demonstrated that the
Examiner's proffered combination of references would have been "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(internal citation omitted).
6
Appeal2014-004948
Application 13/290,866
Appellants also argue, with respect to the additional limitation of
claim 19 regarding storing changes to data in a "delta log": "No reference is
made [in Maionchi] to how data belonging to a columnar table in the
columnar data store is stored in first virtual file per column for a main
storage area and a second virtual file corresponding for the delta log." (App.
Br. 17 .) This argument is also unpersuasive, as attacking references
individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references, and as consisting of attorney's
arguments and conclusory statements. In particular, we are not persuaded
the Examiner errs in relying on the disclosure in Maionchi of a file change
log that tracks changes to files, together with the teachings of Vick and Bata,
to reject claim 19. (See Final Act. 22-23; Ans. 13-14; Maionchi Abstract,
Fig. 9, col. 3, 11. 32--45.)
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejections
of claims 1, 10, and 19 over Vick, Bata, and Maionchi. We also sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 20, which adds to claim 19 the truncation
limitation discussed above, given that Appellants raise the same arguments
as to that rejection as those discussed above and found unpersuasive. (App.
Br. 18.) In addition, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4--9,
11, and 13-18, which are not argued separately with particularity. (App. Br.
16-17.)
7
Appeal2014-004948
Application 13/290,866
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8