Ex Parte Chandrasekar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2016

12791337 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121791,337 06/01/2010 Sivasankaran Chandrasekar
42425 7590 10/31/2016
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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.
50277-3687 2474
EXAMINER
ZHAO, YU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIV ASANKARAN CHANDRASEKAR and
NIPUN AGARWAL
Appeal2015-004402
Application 12/791,337 1
Technology Center 2100
Before SCOTT B. HOW ARD, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 10, and 12-14. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Oracle International
Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-004402
Application 12/791,3 3 7
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "storing XML data in
database systems more efficiently." Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below with emphasis added to
highlight the disputed, dispositive limitations.
1. A method comprising steps of:
loading each XML document of a plurality of XML
documents into a table in which XML documents are stored in
shredded form, wherein loading said each XML document
comprises:
generating column values of a plurality of
columns, said column values to be stored in a respective
plurality of rows in the table;
analyzing said column values;
based on said analyzing said column values, for
each column of said plurality of columns, making a
determination for said each column of a row-storage
format, said making a determination for said each column
of a row-storage format including:
determining \'l1hether to store respective
column values of said each column in column-
maj or or row-major format, and
determining whether to use a compression
technique to compress said respective column
values; and
storing the column values into the table
according to the determinations of the row-storage
format made for said plurality of columns; and
wherein said plurality of XML documents include a first
XML document and a second XML document:
wherein for said first XML document and for a
particular column of said plurality of columns, said
making a determination for said particular column of the
row-storage format includes to store said particular
column in column-major format; and
2
Appeal2015-004402
Application 12/791,3 3 7
wherein for said second XML document and for
said particular column of said plurality of columns, said
making a determination for said particular column of the
row-storage format includes to store said particular
column in row-major format.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 10, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chau et al.
(US 6,643,633 B2; issued Nov. 4, 2003) (hereinafter "Chau"), Johnson et al.
(US 2010/0042587 Al; published Feb. 18, 2010) (hereinafter "Johnson"),
and Jain et al. (7,496,589B1; issued Feb. 24, 2009) (hereinafter "Jain"),
collectively referred to hereinafter as "the combination."
DISPOSITIVE ISSUE ON APPEAL
The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the Examiner errs in
finding the cited portions of the combination teach or suggest determining to
store in a table (i) a column of a first XML document in column-major
format and (ii) the same column of a second XML document in row-major
format, as required by independent claims 1 and 10.
ANALYSIS
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive with respect to the cited
portions of the combination failing to teach or suggest the above dispositive,
disputed limitations.
Appellants argue the combination, and Jain in particular, fails to teach
or suggest "[ s ]toring the same column in different major formats (e.g.
column-major or row-major) for different rows that are for different XML
3
Appeal2015-004402
Application 12/791,3 3 7
documents, but that are the same table." App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).
Specifically, Appellants argue Jain instead teaches "alternative ways of
compressing a block of rows, and how different compression algorithms can
be used for different columns once the rows have been transposed ...
[where] transposing converts rows from row-major format to column-major
format." See App. Br. 8-9 (citing Jain col. 2, 1. 63 - col. 3, 1. 25; col. 3, 1. 58
- col. 4, 1. 3; col. 4, 11. 31-36; col. 5, 11. 22-23, 37-58; col. 6, 11. 11-20); see
also Reply Br. 4--5. Furthermore, Appellants argue the Examiner
improperly resorts to hypotheticals and supposition to extend beyond Jain's
teachings and suggestions in finding Jain teaches the disputed limitations.
See Reply Br. 4--5.
The Examiner finds the combination, and Jain in particular, teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations. See Ans. 3--4. Specifically, the Examiner
finds Jain teaches (i) a table can be partitioned into blocks and (ii) blocks
can be compressed in a column-wise or row-wise format. Ans. 3 (citing Jain
col. 2, 1. 63 - col. 3, 1. 25). The Examiner finds Jain thus teaches that a first
XML document can be stored in a table compressed in a column-wise
format while a second XML document also can be stored in the table, but
compressed in a row-wise format, and that the blocks can contain the same
columns. See Ans. 3; see also id. at 4 (citing Jain Figs. 3, 4) (finding one of
ordinary skill in the art "would understand and find obvious, that each block
is individually/separately determined to select a best compression algorithm
and stored/compressed (e.g.[,] ... Block A may be determined to be row-
wise, where Block B may be determined to be column-wise)").
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner cited portions of Jain fail
to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. We also agree with Appellants
4
Appeal2015-004402
Application 12/791,3 3 7
that the Examiner's findings of Jain teaching (i) blocks can be compressed
"in a number of ways," (e.g., column-wise or row-wise) and (ii) a table can
be partitioned into blocks are insufficient to support that Jain teaches or
suggests storing in the same table the same column for different XML
documents in a column-major and a row-major format. See Jain col. 2, 1. 63
- col. 3, 1. 25; col. 3, 1. 58 - col. 4, 1. 3; col. 4, 11. 31-36; col. 5, 11. 22-23,
37-58; col. 6, 11. 11-20; Figs. 3, 4.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1
and 10, as well as the rejection of the remaining claims, which each depend
from either claim 1 or claim 10.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 10, and
12-14.
REVERSED
5