Ex Parte Vaitheeswaran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

13856441 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/856,441 04/04/2013
32864 7590 12/04/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ganesh V aitheeswaran
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.
22135-1182001/120310US01 9348
EXAMINER
DA YE, CHELCIE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GANESH V AITHEESWARAN,
RAHUL KUMAR JHA, SURAJ PAI AIRODY,
ANUP KUMAR RAI, and ARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE
Appeal 2018-003213
Application 13/856,441 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to "in-database provisioning of data." Spec.
Title ( capitalization omitted).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. App. Br. 3.
Our citations to "App. Br." refer to the "Response to Notification ofNon-
Compliant Appeal Brief (37 CPR 41.37)" filed on June 5, 2017.
Appeal 2018-003213
Application 13/856,441
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A computer implemented method for provisioning a data set
in a database for in-database searching, the method comprising:
receiving the data set to be provisioned for in-database
searching in the database;
a processor, analyzing sample data from each column of
columns from the data set by executing a metadata evaluation
procedure in the database, to detect a plurality of classifications;
detecting a plurality of classification values for the
plurality of classifications of each column of the columns from
the data set;
detecting a hierarchy of a set of classification values for a
first classification from the plurality of classifications, defined
for a set of columns of the columns from the data set based on
determining a correlation between the set of classification values,
wherein the set of classification values corresponds to the set of
columns for the first classification; and
storing the detected plurality of classification values for
the plurality of classifications of each column of the columns
from the data set and the detected hierarchy as data set metadata
in a schema comprising metadata for provisioned data in the
database, wherein the metadata is used for in-database searching
of the database.
Rejections
Claims 1-3, 9-12, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as obvious over the combination of Chen '300 (US 2013/0290300 Al; Oct.
31, 2013) and Ocke (US 2013/0194171 Al; Aug. 1, 2013). Final Act. 2.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Chen '300, Ocke, and Kumar
(US 2014/0247267 Al; Sept. 4, 2014). Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal 2018-003213
Application 13/856,441
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the
combination of Chen '300, Ocke, Kumar, and Chen '344 (US 9,043,344 B 1;
May 26, 2015). Final Act. 7.
Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over the combination of Chen '300, Ocke, and Guo (US 2014/0095547 Al;
Apr. 3, 2014). Final Act. 8.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Ocke teaches or suggests "detecting a
plurality of classification values for the plurality of classifications of each
column of the columns from the data set," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "a processor, analyzing sample data from each column
of columns from the data set ... , to detect a plurality of classifications" and
"detecting a plurality of classification values for the plurality of
classifications of each column of the columns from the data set."
Independent claims 11 and 16 recite commensurate limitations.
The Examiner relies on Ocke for teaching these limitations. Ans. 8-9.
Ocke incorporates by reference the entirety of "U.S. patent application Ser.
No. 12/857,997" (Ocke ,r 25), which published as US 2012/0046937. The
Examiner refers to this publication as "Ocke '937" and relies on it as part of
the rejection based on Ocke. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that Ocke may teach multiple classification values
but only teaches one classification for each column. See App. Br. 9-11. For
example, Figure 1 of Ocke depicts a data set of names and addresses
3
Appeal 2018-003213
Application 13/856,441
(labeled 106) and Ocke assigns each column name (e.g., "zip") to one
"Category/ Classification" ( e.g., "Zip code" as shown under label 118).
The Examiner, however, "has not interpreted the claim language to
support such argument." Ans. 8. According to the Examiner, the data set as
a whole might require "a plurality of classifications" and "a plurality of
classification values" but claim 1 only requires "each column ... has
a classification with a value." Id. ( emphasis added).
We agree with Appellants. The plain language of claim 1 requires a
"plurality of classifications of each column." This is consistent with the
Specification, which discloses starting with a data set such as the table
shown in Figure 7, then as shown in Figure 8B, classifying each of Figure
7's columns in multiple ways (e.g., both "DATA_TYPE" and
"CATEGORY"). See Spec. Figs. 7, 8B, ,r,r 22, 27-28, Table 1. For
example, Figure 8B shows that the "Country" column (from Figure 7) has a
"DATA TYPE" of "VAR CHAR" and a "CATEGORY" of "GEO " whereas
- '
the "Revenue" column has a "DAT A_TYPE" of "INT" and a
"CATEGORY" of "NULL." Thus, the Specification discloses determining
multiple types of metadata for each column of data (e.g., determining both
"DATA_TYPE" and "CATEGORY" for the "Country" column), and each
type of metadata has multiple possible values ( e.g., the "DATA_TYPE" can
be "V ARCHAR" or "INT"). This aligns with the claims which require both
a plurality of classifications (e.g., "DATA_TYPE" and "CATEGORY") and
a plurality of classification values (e.g., "VARCHAR" and "INT").
In contrast, Figure 1 of Ocke depicts analyzing a column of data for
only a single classification, which Ocke calls "Category/ Classification."
Different columns may be assigned different values ( e.g., "City" or "Zip
4
Appeal 2018-003213
Application 13/856,441
code") within that single classification, but this teaches only a plurality of
classification values, not a plurality of classifications, as claimed.
Ocke '937 discloses that sometimes the system might not think all the
data in a particular column is of the same kind, such as some data being a
"first name" and other data being an "address." See Ocke '937 ,r,r 33-34.
But just as in Ocke, these constitute a plurality of classification values, not a
plurality of classifications. For example, in Figure 8B of the Specification,
the teaching of Ocke '937 would be akin to filling in multiple values for a
particular entry under the single column "CATEGORY" (i.e., a single
classification), whereas the claims require also filling in a value for another
classification such as "DATA_TYPE."
Thus, the Examiner has shown Ocke teaches or suggests a "plurality
of classification values" but fails to show how Ocke teaches or suggests a
"plurality of classifications of each column," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 11, and 16, and their dependent claims 2-10, 12-15,
and 17-20.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-2 0.
REVERSED
5