Ex Parte Annapragada et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

14288591 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/288,591 05/28/2014
24267 7590 05/02/2019
CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP
ONE LIBERTY SQUARE
SUITE 310
BOSTON, MA 02109
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mrithyunjaya Annapragada
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.
111055-0005 5303
EXAMINER
CONYERS, DAW AUNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2152
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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):
docket@c-m.com
USPTOMail@c-m.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MRITHYUNJA YA ANNAPRAGADA and
BENJAMIN ROUSSEAU 1
Appeal2017-008858
Application 14/288,591 2
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 13, 16-19, 21, 22, 24, and
1 Tesora Inc. ("Appellant") is the applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46
and is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
2 The application on appeal has an effective filing date of May 28, 2014.
Therefore, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) amendments to the
U.S. Code(§§ 102, 103) are applicable. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 2159. 02 ( the amended sections "apply to any patent
application that contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed
invention that has an effective filing date that is on or after March 16,
2013.").
Appeal2017-008858
Application 14/288,591
26-30. Claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 20, 23, and 25 have been canceled.
Final Act. 1-2.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant's Invention
The invention at issue on appeal relates generally to "query planning
in data management systems" (Spec. 2: 13) and, more specifically, database
management systems ("DBMSs") and methods for operating DBMSs where
a user expresses a raw query plan and criteria for executing the raw query
plan. See Spec. 5:21-30; Abstract. The system matches the query in the
DBMS and executes the raw query plan, or the system generates a new
query plan. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A database management system comprising:
a network interface, for receiving an incoming query from
two or more client applications, the client applications operating
on two or more client computers, and for providing a least one
connection into the system for each such client application to
provide incoming commands to the system that include at least
the incoming query;
a group of one or more operational nodes for executing the
incoming query as database operations, each operational node
implemented as a logical collection of software components that
execute on one or more physical or virtual machines;
3 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed May 28, 2014 and
Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed May 2, 2016. We also refer to the Examiner's
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed Dec. 4, 2015; and Answer
("Ans.") mailed Oct. 21, 2016.
2
Appeal2017-008858
Application 14/288,591
a storage system for storing data;
a Query Parser for programmatically transforming the
incoming query into template information and non-template
information, wherein template information represents a parsed
database command without manifest parameters specific to the
incoming query, and the non-template information includes
manifest parameters specific to the incoming query;
a Query Planner for programmatically transforming the
incoming query into a Constructed Query Plan, the Constructed
Query Plan including one or more database operations to be
performed to implement the incoming query;
the system further receiving incoming commands from the
client computers that include a command to store a Raw Query
Plan in a Raw Plan Cache, the Raw Query Plan including (a)
template information (b) one or more database operations to be
performed to implement an incoming query with matching
template information, and (c) additional criteria associated with
the Raw Query Plan, wherein the additional criteria include an
expression that when evaluated produces a value;
a Query Executor for executing the database operations in
the Constructed Query Plans, and for executing the database
operations in the Raw Query Plans, and for causing one or more
results of executing the database operations to be sent to one or
more client applications; and
the system further configured to, after receipt of the
. .
mcommg query:
execute the Query Parser and extract the template
information and the non-template information provided in the
. .
mcommg query;
search the Raw Plan Cache to find a Raw Query Plan with
template information matching the template information of the
incoming query, and
when a Raw Query Plan with a matching template is
found,
then evaluate the expression in the additional
criteria, and
3
Appeal2017-008858
Application 14/288,591
when the expression evaluates to a predetermined
value,
then operate the Query Executor to execute
the matching template in the Raw Query Plan that was found in
the search; and
only when a Raw Query Plan with a matching template is
not found,
then
operate the Query Planner to construct a
Constructed Query Plan, and
operate the Query Executor to execute the Constructed
Query Plan.
Rejections on Appeal4
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 16, 19, 24, 26, 29, and
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz (US
2012/0150842 Al, published June 14, 2012) and Castellanos et al. (US
2012/0072413 Al, published Mar. 22, 2012) ("Castellanos").
2. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 7, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz, Castellanos, and Hanson et al. (US
2006/0224563 Al, published Oct. 5, 2006) ("Hanson").
3. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ruiz, Castellanos, and Schneider et al. (US
2012/0084315 Al, published Apr. 5, 2012) ("Schneider").
4 The Examiner includes canceled claims 10 and 20 in the listing of the
rejected claims. See Final Act. 3. We find this typographical error harmless,
and make appropriate correction in the statement of the rejection for clarity
and consistency.
4
Appeal2017-008858
Application 14/288,591
4. The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Ruiz, Castellanos, and Annapragada (US
2012/0036146 Al, published Feb. 9, 2012).
5. The Examiner rejects claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ruiz, Castellanos, and Subramanian et al. (US
2006/0053096 Al, published Mar. 9, 2006) ("Subramanian").
6. The Examiner rejects claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ruiz, Castellanos, and Chalana et al. (US 2010/0223256
Al, published Sept. 2, 2010) ("Chalana").
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellant's contentions, and
the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Ruiz and
Castellanos collectively would have taught or suggested
receiving incoming commands from the client computers that
include a command to store a Raw Query Plan in a Raw Plan
Cache, the Raw Query Plan including (a) template information
(b) one or more database operations to be performed to
implement an incoming query with matching template
information, and ( c) additional criteria associated with the Raw
Query Plan, wherein the additional criteria include an
expression that when evaluated produces a value
within the meaning of Appellant's claim 1 and the commensurate limitations
of claim 11?
5
Appeal2017-008858
Application 14/288,591
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 16, 19, 24, 26, 29, and 30
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being obvious in view of
Ruiz and Castellanos. See Final Act. 3-10; Ans. 2-10. Appellant contends
that Ruiz and Castellanos do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1.
See Br. 10-17. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that the
Examiner-cited portions of Castellanos do not describe a raw query plan as
recited in claim I-that is, receiving commands to "store a Raw Query Plan
in a Raw Plan Cache" and "the Raw Query Plan including (a) template
information (b) one or more database operations ... , and ( c) additional
criteria ... [that] include an expression that when evaluated produces a
value" ( claim 1 }-because Castellanos only describes "a user interface that
permits a user to construct a query" (Br. 13). See Br. 10-17.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of
Castellanos (Castellanos ,r,r 20, 30-34, 37-see Final Act. 7-10; Ans. 2-10)
do not describe receiving commands to store a raw query plan or a raw
query plan including the required elements. At best, the cited portions of
Castellanos describe generating a query plan utilizing user supplied criteria
(see Br. 12-13; Castellanos ,r,r 30-31, 33). Castellanos does not disclose
receiving commands to store a raw query plan or actually receiving a raw
query plan including the required elements. Even if we presume Castellanos
generates and stores a raw query plan, as urged by the Examiner (see Ans.
2-10), we are still left to speculate whether and how Castellanos (in
combination with Ruiz) evaluates the expression included in the raw query
plan and determines which query plan to execute responsive to the
evaluation. See Br. 10-17.
6
Appeal2017-008858
Application 14/288,591
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us and
determine that the Examiner erred in concluding that Ruiz and Castellanos
render obvious Appellant's claim 1. Independent claim 11 includes
limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 6, 9, 16, 19, 24, 26,
29, and 30 depend from and stand with claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 16,
19, 24, 26, 29, and 30.
Claims 3, 7, 8, 13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 27, and 28
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 7, 13, and 17, which depend from
claims 1 and 11 (respectively), as obvious in view of Ruiz, Castellanos, and
Hanson. See Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 18,
which depend from claims 1 and 11 (respectively), as obvious in view of
Ruiz, Castellanos, and Schneider. See Final Act. 14. The Examiner rejects
claims 21 and 22, which depend from claims 1 and 11 (respectively), as
obvious in view of Ruiz, Castellanos, and Annapragada. See Final Act. 15.
The Examiner rejects claim 2 7, which depends from claim 1, as obvious in
view of Ruiz, Castellanos, and Subramanian. See Final Act. 16-17. The
Examiner also rejects claim 28, which depends from claim 1, as obvious in
view of Ruiz, Castellanos, and Chalana. See Final Act. 17-18. The
Examiner does not suggest, and we do not find, that the additional cited
references (Hanson, Schneider, Annapragada, Subramanian, or Chalana)
cure the deficiencies of Ruiz and Castellanos (supra). Therefore, we reverse
the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3, 7, 8, 13, 17,
18, 21, 22, 27, and 28 for the same reasons set forth as their respective base
claims (supra).
7
Appeal2017-008858
Application 14/288,591
CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 6-9,
11, 13, 16-19, 21, 22, 24, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 13, 16-
19, 21, 22, 24, and 26-30.
REVERSED
8