Bensberg, Christian et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2020

2019002076 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/043,281 10/01/2013 Christian Bensberg 34874-988F01US 4742
64280 7590 08/04/2020
Mintz Levin/SAP
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
EXAMINER
GANGER, ARTHUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2020 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
mintzdocketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN BENSBERG, CHRISTIAN KRAUS, AXEL
HERBST, STEFAN ELFNER, HOLGER SCHWEDES, and
HEIKO GERWENS

Appeal 2019-002076
Application 14/043,281
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20, which are all of the pending
claims.1 See Appeal Br. 20–23 (Claims App.). Claims 7 and 14 are
canceled. See id. at 21, 23 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAP SE. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002076
Application 14/043,281

2
Introduction
The Specification states that “the current subject matter relates to a
computer-implemented method for providing a transparent access to multi-
temperature data” “that can avoid (content-wise) unnecessary data load and
processing costs without placing a decision burden on end users or
application developers in deciding whether data of lower temperatures
should be accessed.” Spec. ¶¶ 6, 7.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent, of which claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a query for access of data, the query containing
at least one selection parameter for retrieval of data, wherein
the data is stored in a plurality of partitions of a database
system, each partition in the plurality of partitions having a
maximum data value per column, a minimum data value per
column, a predetermined date associated with the data
contained in the at least one partition of data, and at least one
restriction for retrieval of data, the at least one restriction
including at least one of the following: a date restriction and a
status restriction, the date restriction including criteria for
partitioning a hot data from a cold data and for partitioning the
cold data, the status restriction including logic for separating
the hot data from the cold data;
determining whether the at least one selection parameter
is greater than the minimum data value per column and less
than the maximum data value per column and whether the
queried data is stored in at least two partitions of data;
selecting a joining parameter based on a boundary of an
object including at least one partition of data in the plurality of
partitions and based on a temperature of data indicative of
whether the data in the at least two partitions of data is at least
one of the following: the cold data and the hot data;
joining, using the selected joining parameter, the at least
two partitions of data; and
Appeal 2019-002076
Application 14/043,281

3
retrieving, based on the determining, the queried joined
data from the plurality of partitions using the predetermined
date and the at least one restriction associated with the data
contained in the plurality of partitions;
wherein the at least one of the receiving, the determining,
the selecting, the joining and the retrieving is performed on at
least one processor of at least one computing system.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

The Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Malige, Leverenz, Yoon, Guo, Lorentz,
and Cambot. Final Act. 2–42.
Name Reference Date
Cambot et al. (Cambot) US 7,899,810 B2 Mar. 1, 2011
Malige et al. (Malige) US 2011/0282830 A1 Nov. 17, 2011
Yoon et. al. (Yoon) US 2013/0166553 A1 June 27, 2013
Guo et al. (Guo) US 2014/0095547 A1 Apr. 3, 2014
Lefty Leverenz et al., 1 Oracle 8i Concepts Release 8.1.5 Oracle
Corporation (Feb. 1999) (Leverenz).
Lorentz, Oracle Database SQL Reference 10g Release 2 (10.2) (Dec.
2005) (Lorentz).
Appeal 2019-002076
Application 14/043,281

4
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends, inter alia,2 the Examiner errs in finding the
combination of Guo and Cambot teaches or suggests the following limitation
of claim 1:
selecting a joining parameter based on a boundary of an object
including at least one partition of data in the plurality of
partitions and based on a temperature of data indicative of
whether the data in the at least two partitions of data is at least
one of the following: the cold data and the hot data.
Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 4–6.
The Examiner relies on Guo for teaching “selecting a joining
parameter based on a temperature of data indicative of whether the data . . .
is at least one of the following: the cold data and the hot data.” Final Act. 8–
9 (citing Guo ¶¶ 103, 107); Ans. 11. The Examiner relies on Cambot for
teaching “selecting a joining parameter based on a boundary of an object
including at least one partition of data in the plurality of partitions.” Final
Act. 12–13 (citing Cambot 7:20, 9:20, 9:52); Ans. 15–16.
Appellant argues that
the cited references are entirely silent with regard to selection of
a “joining parameter” based on a boundary of an object that
includes at least one partition of data in the plurality of
partitions and based on a temperature of data indicative of
whether the data in the at least two partitions of data is a cold
data and/or a hot data.

2 We reverse the Examiner based on a dispositive issue and, therefore,
we do not address all of Appellant’s arguments. See Beloit Corp. v.
Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an
administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single
dispositive issue”).

Appeal 2019-002076
Application 14/043,281

5
Reply Br. 4. Appellant explains that
Cambot, contrary to the Examiner’s suggestion . . . is entirely
silent with regard to defining or using boundary conditions . . .
for the purposes of selection of a joining parameter. Cambot
us[es] a query of the user to generate a list of all potential joins,
which, hypothetically, may produce an infinite set or a set that
extends beyond what the Examiner deemed as a boundary of an
object.
Id. at 6. Appellant explains further that
Cambot’s final list of tables determined from a set of initial
tables using a list of all joins in the current universe clearly
would include tables that are beyond the boundary of its
business object, as both table sets (initial set of tables and final
set of tables) and potentially unlimited set of joins would
generate an open set of data that may or may not be responsive
to the query.
Id. Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner finds Cambot
teaches “selecting a joining parameter based on a boundary of an object
including at least one partition of data in the plurality of partitions.” Final
Act. 12–13 (citing Cambot 7:20, 9:20, 9:52). The Examiner explains that
Cabot’s disclosure of a query engine determining proper joins to use in a
query defined using a business objects interface, wherein the process
includes determining a list of tables to join, “is a selection based on a
boundary of an object as it is based on the configuration of what data is
included in the object.” Id. at 12–13. The Examiner explains further that
Cambot . . . teach[es] the use of boundary conditions for the
purposes of selection of a joining parameter, in that Cambot
teaches the definition of data to include in a business object (by
using the Query on Business Objects interface . . .) that is then
used to determine the proper joins to use automatically (the
Query Engine is taught to automatically determine the proper
Appeal 2019-002076
Application 14/043,281

6
joins to use in a query . . . wherein the definition of a business
object is taught to generate a query . . .).
Ans. 15 (citing Cambot 7:20, 9:20). The Examiner acknowledges Cambot’s
disclosure of generating a list of all potential joins, but asserts that this “is
not antithetical to or exclusive of the selection of a joining parameter,” and
that “Cambot is explicit that the proper joins are selected.” Id. According
to Examiner, “[n]o limitations are recited which exclude a selection process
which first generates a list of all potential options before making a
selection.” Id.
Here, Cambot, in the cited disclosures, describes a system in which
(1) the manager in the query engine defines the list of all potential
table joins in the universe of tables involved;
(2) the query engine then automatically uses logic to determine the
proper joins to use in a query;
(3) once the user has defined a query using the query on business
objects interface, the query engine generates the SQL query and transmits it
to the relational kernel; and
(4) a single path may be determined connecting all the tables in the
initial list of tables using the list of joins of the current universe. Cambot
7:19–23, 9:18–21, 9:52–55.
These disclosures teach determining the proper joins to use in a query
based on a list of all potential joins. We are not persuaded that this suggests
selecting a joining parameter based on a boundary of an object. Rather, we
agree with Appellant that Cambot’s technique may produce an infinite set or
a set that extends beyond what the Examiner deemed as a boundary of a
business object. Nor does the Examiner identify a disclosure from Malige,
Appeal 2019-002076
Application 14/043,281

7
Leverenz, Yoon, Guo, or Lorentz, or an obviousness rationale that cures this
deficiency.
Because the Examiner has not persuaded us that the prior art teaches
or suggests “selecting a joining parameter based on a boundary of an object
including at least one partition of data in the plurality of partitions,” the
Examiner also has not persuaded us that the prior art teaches or suggests
claim 1 as a whole, including the operation of “joining, using the selected
joining parameter, the at least two partitions of data.” Claim 1 (emphasis
added).
We, therefore, agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in rejecting
claim 1 as obvious over the combination of Malige, Leverenz, Yoon, Guo,
Lorentz, and Cambot. This analysis applies with equal force to independent
claims 8 and 15, which recite a similar limitation for which the Examiner
does not cure, and the rejections of dependent claims 2–6, 9–13, and 16–
20. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent
claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious”).
CONCLUSION
We, therefore, do not sustain the § 103 rejections of the independent
claims 1, 8, and 15. We likewise do not sustain the § 103 rejections of their
dependent claims 2–6, 9–13, and 16–20.
Appeal 2019-002076
Application 14/043,281

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–13,
15–20 103
Malige, Leverenz,
Yoon, Guo,
Lorentz, Cambot
1–6, 8–13, 15–
20
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–13, 15–20

REVERSED