Ex Parte Yingst

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2012

10998399 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PATRICIA L. YINGST
____________________

Appeal 2010-002547
Application 10/998,399
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002547
Application 10/998,399

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-55. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a system and method
for loading data into a multi-table tablespace of a relational database system.
(Spec. 1, [0001]).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A relational database load operation for a segmented
tablespace of a DB2 database environment, the segmented
tablespace having a plurality of tables, the load operation
comprising:
replacing a first table with replacement data;
maintaining original data of a second table without
resuming or replacing the original data; and
resuming the second table with resumed data,
wherein the acts of replacing, maintaining, and resuming
are performed in a single pass through the segmented
tablespace.

Prior Art
Barry US 5,887,274 Mar. 23, 1999
Hintz US 6,163,783 Dec. 19, 2000

Appeal 2010-002547
Application 10/998,399

3
Rejections
Claims 1-55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barry and Hintz.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1, 9, 17, 26, 35, 45,
and 55. (See App. Br. 6-8 and 10-15).
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 2
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 2-6, 10-14, 18-23,
27-32, 36-41, and 46-51. (See App. Br. 9, 12, 15, and 16).
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claims 7
and 8 to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 24,
25, 33, 34, 42-44, and 52-54. (See App. Br. 10, 13, and 16).
We accept Appellant’s grouping of the claims. We have only
considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs.
Arguments Appellant 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)(1)(vii) (2009).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 9, 17, 26, 35, 45, and 55
Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Barry and Hintz
(App. Br. 7-8). Specifically,
Appeal 2010-002547
Application 10/998,399

4
Appellant argues Barry does not mention load operations of a
tablespace in which original data of a table is replaced by replacement data,
new data is resumed with existing data of a table, and existing data in one
table is not modified when replacing/resuming data of another table as
claimed (App. Br. 7). Instead, according to Appellant, Barry’s process
performs unload and load operations in multiple passes through the data,
which the present invention seeks to avoid (App. Br. 8). Appellant then
contends Hintz fails to teach or suggest the missing teachings as Hintz reads
data from a tablespace so the information can be sorted and examined, and
Hintz does not mention a load operation loading data in a tablespace (id.).
In addition, Appellant asserts no motivation exists to combine Barry
and Hintz (id.). Specifically, Appellant argues Barry explicitly avoids using
a sort technique and Hintz explicitly uses a sort routine on data read (id.).
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Barry
and Hintz would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in claim
1?
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Ans. 3-4 and
23-24). Initially we emphasize the claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In light of these
interpretations, we agree with the Examiner that Barry teaches or suggests
“replacing a first table with replacement data; maintaining original data of a
second table without resuming or replacing the original data; and resuming
the second table with resumed data” (Ans. 3-4, 8-7, 10, 13, 16-17, 19-20,
and 23-28).
Appeal 2010-002547
Application 10/998,399

5
We additionally highlight that it is apparent from the Examiner’s line
of reasoning in the Answer that the basis for the obviousness rejection is the
combination of Barry and Hintz. Appellant argues Barry’s process performs
unload and load operations in multiple passes; however, the Examiner is
relying upon Hintz as teaching or suggesting the acts are performed in a
single pass (Ans. 4 and 23-24). Similarly, while Appellant argues Hintz
does not teach or suggest a load operation loading data in a tablespace, the
Examiner is relying on Barry as teaching or suggesting the loading operation
loading data (Ans. 4-5 and 23-24). One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant has not set forth any persuasive evidence or argument that
Barry does not teach or suggest the limitations found by the Examiner or that
Hintz does not teach or suggest performing functions in a single pass. It
follows, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Barry and Hintz teaches or suggests the present invention as
recited in claim 1.
In addition, the Examiner has set forth a motivation as to why an
ordinary artisan would have combined the technique of Hintz into the system
of Barry (Ans. 4). Although Appellant argues one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been motivated to combine the technique of Hintz into the
system of Barry (App. Br. 8, 11, 12, and 15), this argument is similarly
unpersuasive. First, the Examiner is not relying upon Hintz for its sorting
operation, but instead relies upon Hintz as teaching or suggesting acts
Appeal 2010-002547
Application 10/998,399

6
performed in a single pass. Therefore, Appellant’s argument that Hintz
teaches away from Barry is unpersuasive. Moreover, even if we were to
consider Appellant’s argument, although Barry teaches or suggests
reorganizing database data and index files into key order without utilizing
conventional sorting procedures (col. 1, ll. 14-20), Appellant has not shown
that Hintz uses “a conventional sorting procedure.”
As a result, Appellant has not presented any persuasive argument or
evidence to show error in the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of Hintz into
the system of Barry.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Barry and Hintz would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 9,
17, 26, 35, 45, and 55 and concluding one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine the technique of Hintz into the system of
Barry. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 9, 17, 26,
35, 45, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Barry and
Hintz.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 2-6, 10-14, 18-23, 27-32, 36-41, and 46-51
Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Barry and Hintz
because Barry does not teach or suggest reclaiming segments directly in a
tablespace by reading one or more spacemap pages in that tablespace;
instead, Barry writes table data to a buffer skipping empty pages, renames
Appeal 2010-002547
Application 10/998,399

7
row IDs, makes new spacemap pages, and then writes the table data in order
into a new table file allocated for that purpose (App. Br. 9).
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
Barry and Hintz would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in
claim 2?
ANALYSIS
Initially we note Appellant has not explicitly defined “reclaimable” in
the Specification. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
and emphasize that Barry teaches free space maps and free pages that are
then used – are reclaimed (Ans. 4, 5, 8-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, and
28).
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Barry and Hintz would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in
claim 2. Claims 3-6, 10-14, 18-23, 27-32, 36-41, and 46-51 fall with claim
2. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2-6, 10-14, 18-23,
27-32, 36-41, and 46-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Barry and Hintz.

ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 24, 25, 33, 34, 42-44, and 52-54
Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Barry and Hintz
because Barry does not teach or suggest adding segments at the end of an
existing segmented tablespace and instead just reads data from a file to a
buffer, opens a new file, and writes the data in a new order into that new file
(App. Br. 10).
Appeal 2010-002547
Application 10/998,399

8
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
Barry and Hintz would have taught or suggested “loading any remaining
replacement data” and “loading the resumed data” “into one or more new
segments added after an existing end of the segmented tablespace” as recited
in claims 7 and 8?
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Ans. 6, 9,
12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 28). We further highlight that the
Examiner finds Barry teaches an area set up for a buffer having one column
with slots for each row and additional slots for each place (Ans. 25, 27, and
28). Appellant has not presented any persuasive evidence or argument to
rebut the Examiner’s finding that this is one or more new segments added
after an existing end of a segmented tablespace.”
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Barry and Hintz would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in
claims 7 and 8. Claims 15, 16, 24, 25, 33, 34, 42-44, and 52-54 fall with
claims 7 and 8. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7, 8,
15, 16, 24, 25, 33, 34, 42-44, and 52-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Barry and Hintz.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Barry and Hintz is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
Appeal 2010-002547
Application 10/998,399

9
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

msc