Ex Parte Abdellatif et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

12950397 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/950,397 11/19/2010 Taoufik B. Abdellatif
56436 7590 08/12/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82275719 7681
EXAMINER
KIM, CHRISTY Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte TAOUFIKB. ABDELLATIF, SURESH SUBBIAH,
A WNY K. AL-OMARI, and HANSJORG ZELLER
Appeal2015-002579
Application 12/950,397
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 4, and 6-15. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is a database management system where a
query data collector accesses a query repository table to determine if a
particular query plan has the lowest resource cost of execution. In one
aspect, the query repository table is accessed to change a query optimizer's
heuristic or logic functions based on runtime statistics. See generally
Abstract; Spec. i-fi-115, 17-18; Figs. 1-2.
Appeal2015-002579
Application 12/950,397
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A database management system comprising:
a memory for storing computer executable instructions; and
a processing unit for accessing the memory and executing the
computer executable instructions, the computer executable instructions
compnsmg:
a compiler comprising a query optimizer to generate query plans, the
compiler to:
generate a cache key based on a first received query;
generate a first query plan based on the first received query;
generate the cache key based on a second received query, the second
received query having a different parameter than the first received query;
access a query repository table to change at least one of heuristic and
logic functions of the query optimizer for generating the query plans, the
changing of the at least one of the heuristic and logic functions of the query
optimizer being based on runtime statistics stored in the query repository
table, wherein the query repository table includes a plurality of query
records with annotated query plans, each annotated query plan comprising
text sufficient to generate a query plan of a certain form; and
generate a second query plan, different than the first query plan based
on a given annotated query plan stored with a given query record of the
plurality of query records in the query repository table, wherein the
annotated query plan is stored in the query repository table before the
generating of the cache key based on the second received query; and
2
Appeal2015-002579
Application 12/950,397
a query data collector to access the query repository table to determine
if the first query plan for a first configuration executed on a relational
database has a lower resource cost of execution than the second query plan
for a second configuration executed on the relational database.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bestgen (US 2008/0183684 Al; July 31, 2008) ("Bestgen
2") and Bestgen (US 200710156736 Al; July 5, 2007). Final Act. 3--4. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bestgen 2, Bestgen, and Boukouvalas (US
7,167,848 B2; Jan. 23, 2007). Final Act. 5-12.
The Examiner rejected claims 6-8 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bestgen 2, Bestgen, Boukouvalas, and Burger
(US 7,831,593 B2; Nov. 9, 2010). Final Act. 12-16.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER BESTGEN 2 AND BESTGEN
The Examiner finds that Bestgen 2 discloses every recited element of
independent claim 13, including a compiler to access a query repository
table to change at least one of heuristic and logic functions of a query
optimizer for generating query plans, where this changing is based on the
table's runtime statistics. Final Act. 3--4. According to the Examiner,
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
February 13, 2014 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed June 10, 2014
("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed October 23, 2014 ("Ans.");
and (4) the Reply Brief filed December 19, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2015-002579
Application 12/950,397
Bestgen 2's plan generator 112 accesses a frequent value table (FVT) and,
based on the distribution of values in this table, decides the number of
categories used to calculate a routing code. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that the cache key and query
plan generation functions of Bestgen 2' s compiler are not based on an
annotated query plan as claimed, the Examiner cites Bestgen as teaching this
feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest
accessing a query repository table to change at least one of heuristic and
logic functions of a query optimizer, as claimed. App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br.
2--4. According to Appellants, neither the heuristic nor logic functions of
Bestgen 2's plan generator are changed; rather, only database statistics are
modified. App. Br. 10. Appellants emphasize this distinction, for the claim
is said to require changing the heuristic and logic functions of the query
optimizer itself, regardless of changes to the database. App. Br. 11-12.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 by finding
that Bestgen 2 and Bestgen collectively would have taught or suggested
accessing a query repository table to change at least one of heuristic and
logic functions of a query optimizer for generating query plans?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner's reliance on the secondary
reference to Bestgen is undisputed, as is the cited references' combinability.
Rather, as noted above, this dispute turns solely on the Examiner's reliance
4
Appeal2015-002579
Application 12/950,397
on Bestgen 2 for teaching the recited accessing a query repository table to
change at least one of heuristic and logic functions of a query optimizer.
Therefore, we confine our discussion to Bestgen 2.
Turning to the rejection, the Examiner finds, among other things, that
the number of categories used to calculate Bestgen 2' s routing code changes
depending on the distribution of values of a column as shown in the
statistics. Final Act. 4 (citing Bestgen 2 i-f 73). Notably, in the Answer, the
Examiner repeatedly characterizes this functionality as a decision on the
number of categories used to calculate the routing code depending on the
distribution of values of a column in the PVT (shown in paragraph 71) of
database statistics. Ans. 3.
Our emphasis on the word "decision" underscores that, while not a
model of clarity, the Examiner apparently finds that this decision to use a
certain number of categories based on a particular distribution teaches or
suggests the recited changing the query optimizer's heuristic and/or logic
functions, or that such as change would have been obvious from this choice-
based decision. See Ans. 3 ("[T]he change in logic functions or heuristics
during runtime is merely a decision on the choices created by the creators
based on the values of data (or parameters) being processed.") (emphasis
added). Given these findings, the Examiner apparently takes the position
that choosing one categorization option over another in light of these options
(i.e., making such a "decision") means that it would have been obvious to
change the query optimizer's heuristic and/or logic function as claimed.
Bestgen 2's paragraph 73, on which the Examiner relies, describes
using an PVT to categorize a host variable value in a Structured Query
Language (SQL) query based on the distribution of possible column values
5
Appeal2015-002579
Application 12/950,397
for a host variable value. The number of possible categories depends on the
distribution of values for a particular column. Bestgen 2 i-f 73. For example,
an even distribution for a column may be categorized using only a single
category. Id. But distributions that are skewed high or low may either be
divided into (1) two categories (one with an average range portion, and the
other for the skewed high portion), or (2) three categories (one with a middle
average range portion and the others for the skewed high and skewed low
portions, respectively). Paragraph 73 adds that the number of categories
may be calculated using well-known statistical and mathematical algorithms
that may involve, for example, standard deviation or averaging distribution
values.
Despite these options, we fail to see-nor has the Examiner
explained-how Bestgen 2' s routing code calculation functionality involves
accessing a query repository table to change a query optimizer's heuristic or
logic functions to generate query plans, as claimed. To the extent that the
Examiner concludes such a change would have been obvious from the
various categorization choices in paragraph 73 and, in particular, for
distributions that are skewed high and low, the Examiner simply fails to
explain how such categorization decisions teach or suggest the recited
heuristic or logic function change. Therefore, the weight of the evidence
favors Appellants' position.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 13.
6
Appeal2015-002579
Application 12/950,397
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Because independent claims 1 and 9 contain limitations
commensurate with those in independent claim 13, we likewise will not
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-12, 14, and 15 for similar
reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, and 6-15 under§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, and 6-15 is reversed.
REVERSED
7