Ex Parte Benkstein

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13686743 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
13/686,743 11/27/2012 Frank Benkstein 34874-875F01US 1235
64280 7590 04/04/2017
Mintz Levin/SAP
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
One Financial Center
EXAMINER
SULTANA, NARGIS
Boston, MA 02111 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK BENKSTEIN
Appeal 2016-005487
Application 13/686,743
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—20. App. Br. 4.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed December 26, 2014 (“Final Act.”); the
Appeal Brief filed September 11, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
mailed February 26, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed April 25, 2016
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-005487
Application 13/686,743
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
Tables in a database can include an internal RowID column. For
each new row or new version of a row in the table, a new RowID
can be assigned and stored in the RowID column. Row ID values
can be stored using either or both of range compression and block
compression, or other compression approaches. In response to
receipt of a query of the database table, at least one of a forward
look up and a reverse lookup of a DocID value associated with a
specific RowID value can be performed.
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed invention:
1. A computer program product comprising a non-transitory
machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when
executed by at least one programmable processor, cause the at
least one programmable processor to perform operations
comprising:
assigning, to at least one of a new row and a new version
of a row added to a database table, a Row ID value comprising a
sequential integer value;
storing the Row ID value in a Row ID column of the
database table;
compressing the RowID column according to a
compression approach;
accessing the Row ID column in response to receipt of a
query of the database table to perform at least one of a forward
lookup and a reverse lookup of a DocID associated with a
specific Row ID value, the DocID value comprising a numerical
identifier associated with at least one of a document and a value
associated with the row of the database table corresponding to
the specific RowID value;
returning, based on the least one of the forward lookup and
the reverse lookup, at least one of the specific Row ID or the
DocID associated with the Row ID.
2
Appeal 2016-005487
Application 13/686,743
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6—8, 10, 12—14, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yang (US 2011/0246432 Al; published
Oct. 6, 2011). Final Act. 5—7.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Yang and French (US 5,794,228; issued Aug. 11,
1998). Final Act. 7-8.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yang and Kapoor (US 2010/0281004 Al; published
Nov. 4, 2010).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts that Yang does not disclose “storing [a] Row ID
value in a Row ID column of the database table,” as recited in independent
claim 1. App. Br. 10. According to Appellant,
Yang’s column-store database employs columns and column
groups that are arranged by an implicit row identifier. ... As . . .
explained throughout the specification, the Yang RowID values
are not actually stored in a column, but are instead “column-
groups . . . stored with implicit row ids (RIDs) and a RID-to-
primary key column having both column-store and row-store
benefits via column hopping and a heap structure for adding new
data[]. ... In other words, Yang teaches that improvements in
database performance are realized by omitting a RowID column
containing explicit RowID values assigned to rows and instead
relies upon use of values in an existing column of the table to
serve as implicit Row ID values.
Id. (citing Yang 127).
3
Appeal 2016-005487
Application 13/686,743
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Paragraph 27 of Yang
unambiguously indicates that Yang is directed to a database in which
“column-groups are stored with implicit row ids (RIDs) and a RID-to-
primary key column.” See also Yang 137 (“The column-store database may
employ columns and column groups that are arranged based on an implicit
row identifier (RID) scheme and RID to primary column to allow for easy
processing by the [hardware accelerated reconfigurable processor].”)
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s contentions by explaining that
other portions of Yang teach the claimed storing of the RowID value in a
Row ID column of the database table. Ans. 5 (citing Yang || 194—206).
But we are unpersuaded that this additional disclosure teaches the disputed
claim language.
First, this portion of Yang is not completely clear. Paragraph 197
commences, “[referring now to FIG. 20, an example of a forward index is
shown.” However, Yang only includes 19 figures. There is no Figure 20.
More importantly, this portion of Yang appears to describe forms of
database indexing generically—not specifically how such indexing is
employed within the context of Yang’s use of implicit RIDs. As urged by
Appellant,
[i]t is irrelevant whether Yang discusses compression of a
generic column in light of the explicit statements in Yang that
there is no RowID column that can be compressed in a manner
consistent with the subject matter of claims 1,7, and 13 of the
instant application. ... At best, Yang can use an actual column
of the database to derive RowID values.
App. Br. 13.
The Examiner appears to acknowledge Yang’s shortcomings because,
in the Answer, the Examiner newly relies on French for additionally
4
Appeal 2016-005487
Application 13/686,743
teaching that row ID columns were known. Ans. 3 (explaining in relation to
Appellant’s first argument, “[t]he reference French also clearly teaches in
col. 13 lines 38-65 and Fig. 4A-D customer id column that is considered as
row id column and stored in the database table as sequential integer value”).
See also id. at 3, 5 (responding to Appellant’s second and fourth arguments
by interpreting French’s teaching of a customer ID column as corresponding
to the claimed row ID).
We view the Examiner’s new reliance upon French for this particular
claimed element to be an untimely and improper attempt to supplement the
rejection with teachings that were not relied upon in the rejection. See In re
Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970) (“Where a reference is relied
on to support a rejection, whether or not in a ‘minor capacity,’ there would
appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the
statement of the rejection”). The Examiner had previously relied upon
French in rejecting claims 3, 9, and 15 for the limited purpose of teaching
that block compression was a known type of compression (Final Act. 7—8)
and in rejecting claims 5,11, and 17 for the limited purpose of teaching that
a DocID may comprise a signed 32-bit integer key or position serving as a
numerical identifier associated with the document (id. at 8).
Moreover, in newly relying upon French for teaching databases with
non-implicit row ID columns, the Examiner does not explain how such row
ID columns are being incorporated or substituted into Yang’s databases. See
generally Ans. Nor does the Examiner provide any motivation or rationale
for making such a substitution. Id. As such, we do not address the untimely
question of whether the combination of Yang and French would render the
independent claims unpatentable. We, instead, limit our inquiry to the
5
Appeal 2016-005487
Application 13/686,743
appropriateness of the anticipation rejection from which the appeal was
taken.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, as well as
independent claims 7 and 13, which recite commensurate limitations.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims or
of claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18—20, which depend from those
claims.
With respect to the remaining rejections of dependent claims 3, 5, 9,
11, 15, and 17, the Examiner does not rely upon either French or the
combination of French and Kapoor to cure the deficiency of the anticipation
rejection explained above. Final Act. 7—9. We, therefore, do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of these claims for the reasons set forth above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
6