Ex Parte Dipper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2017

14109698 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 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.
14/109,698 12/17/2013 STEFAN DIPPER 000005-015601US 9899
58735 7590 09/22/2017
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
EXAMINER
KIM, PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2017 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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEFAN DIPPER, ERICH MARSCHALL, TOBIAS MINDNICH,
DANIEL BAEUMGES, and CHRISTOPH WEYERHAEUSER
Appeal 2017-006624
Application 14/109,69s1
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, 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—4, 7—9, 11—13, 16—18, and 20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
20161 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. July 8,
Appeal Brief (“App. Br”) 2.
Appeal 2017-006624
Application 14/109,698
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “computing and data
processing, and in particular, to on-line analytic processing execution model
using relational operations.” December 17, 2013 Specification (“Spec.”)
12. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
receiving multiple successive queries in an online
analytic processor (OLAP) executing on one or more
computers;
generating a model, the model specifying a graph
defining a plurality of nodes and a plurality of tiers, each node
corresponding to a different operation on data, wherein the
plurality of nodes of said graph comprise,
a first node on a first tier corresponding to first
data, wherein the first data comprises all the data
required to answer the multiple successive queries, the
first node having a corresponding first subquery for
retrieving the first data, and
a plurality of second nodes on a plurality of tiers
above the first tier, each second node corresponding to a
different operation on the first data and comprising a
different subset of the first data resulting from the
different operation, and
wherein a portion of the nodes of the graph are
represented by subqueries executed in the relational
engine and one or more of the nodes in the graph
correspond to data operations executed by said OLAP;
generating a second query based on the model, the
second query including a plurality of layered subqueries each
corresponding to one of the nodes in the graph for specifying
the different operations on the data;
receiving the second query in a relational engine coupled
to a datastore, wherein the relational engine executes the second
query, and in accordance therewith, retrieves data;
2
Appeal 2017-006624
Application 14/109,698
returning said retrieved data from the relational engine to
the OLAP;
processing the retrieved data in the OLAP based on said
one or more nodes in the graph corresponding to data
operations executed by said OLAP; and
returning a first query result by operating the plurality of
layered subqueries on the first data only, according to the graph.
REJECTION2 ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1—4, 7—9, 11—13, 16—18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Subramanian et al. (US 6,275,818 Bl; issued Aug. 14, 2001) (hereinafter
“Subramanian”), Stolte et al. (US 7,089,266 B2; issued Aug. 8, 2006)
(hereinafter “Stolte”), and Fitzer et al. (US 2008/0162473 Al; published
July 3, 2008) (hereinafter “Fitzer”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’
arguments and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings,
conclusions, and reasoning set forth by the Examiner in the (1) April 6, 2016
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) (“Final Act.” 2—10) and (2) January 26,
2017 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” 2-4). We highlight and address, however,
specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
2 We understand the Examiner’s non-statutory double patenting rejection
(Final Act. 3) over claims 1—20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,650,181 is not before us
in light of the Examiner’s Answer stating (Ans. 2) the applicable appealed
ground of rejection is the § 103 rejection. We also understand Appellants
filed a terminal disclaimer. See App. Br. 10.
3
Appeal 2017-006624
Application 14/109,698
(1) Claim srouyins
Appellants argue the independent claims 1,12, and 20 as a group,
referring just to claim 1, with the arguments also being applicable to claims
12 and 20. App. Br. 10. Accordingly, we address Appellants’ arguments in
the context of claim 1.
(2) Multiple successive queries
Appellants argue the combination of Subramanian, Stolte, and Fitzer
fails to teach or suggests “multiple successive queries,” in accordance with
claim 1. App. Br. 11—12. More specifically, Appellants argue
(i) Subramanian and Stolte fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitation
(and that the Examiner allegedly admits as such) and (ii) Fitzer instead
teaches successive queries "’only where previous queries fail to return any
resultsApp. Br. 11 (citing Fitzer Abstract, Fig. 4); Reply Br. 5 (citing
Fitzer Fig. 4).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 2—3. We agree with the Examiner
that “Fitzer is directed to performing queries against a database in a
successive manner. Specifically, Fitzer discloses that ‘a method 300 that can
be performed on sequence groups’ such that a first, second, third, and
additional successive queries with revisions may be performed.” Ans. 2
(citing Fitzer || 43, 48—50).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that one of ordinary
skill in the art would limit Fitzer’s teachings to having multiple successive
queries only when previous queries fail to return results. Rather, “[a]
reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its
primary purpose.” See In reMouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
4
Appeal 2017-006624
Application 14/109,698
EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(“A reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of
technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and
attempting to protect.”).
(3) Second nodes
Appellants argue the combination of Subramanian, Stolte, and Fitzer
fails to teach or suggest “each second node corresponding to a different
operation on the first data and comprising a different subset of the first data
resulting from the different operation,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11—
12; Reply Br. 4—5. Appellants again argue Fitzer teaches successive queries
only where previous queries fail to return results, and that when “a first
query . . . returns zero matches, it is difficult to see how a second successive
query could possibly return a subset of matches.” App. Br. 11—12 (citing
Fitzer Figs. 3 4). Appellants argue Fitzer’s teaching, thus, does not allow
for obtaining different subsets of first data. App. Br. 11—12 (arguing “no
such subset is possible, because a prior query in a succession of queries
invariably produces no matchins entries. ”).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination teaches the
disputed limitation. Ans. 2-4. More specifically, the Examiner finds, and
we agree, Fitzer teaches or suggests performing a query which returns zero
results3 (i.e., a first “second node”) and a successive query (i.e., a second
“second node”) which returns results (i.e., a different subset of first data
3 The Examiner finds, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
answering a query, “a query may be answered by a database system by
returning a subset of zero results,” which is a subset of the first data. Ans.
3^1.
5
Appeal 2017-006624
Application 14/109,698
resulting from a different operation). See Ans. 4; see also Ans. 2—3 (citing
Fitzer Fig. 4; || 43, 48—50).
We also agree with the Examiner’s reasoning (Ans. 4) and are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that no successive subset is possible
because a prior query had zero results. Specifically, we agree with the
Examiner the claims simply require that the second nodes comprise different
subsets of the first node’s data obtained via different operations performed
against the first node’s data. See App. Br. 13 (claim 1).
(4) Waived arsuments
Appellants have not shown good cause as to why any arguments
raised in the Reply Brief (see Reply Br. 5) relating to the combination failing
to teach “generating a second query based on the model, the second query
including a plurality of layered subqueries,” could not have been presented
earlier. As such, these arguments have not been considered, and are waived.
See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473—74 (BPAI 2010) (informative)
(finding absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to
address arguments in Reply Brief that could have been presented in the
principal Appeal Brief).
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings and reasoning above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 20, as well as claims
2-4, 7—9, 11, 13, and 16—18, as Appellants do not provide separate
arguments for their patentability.
6
Appeal 2017-006624
Application 14/109,698
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 7—9, 11—13,
16-18, and 20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7