Ex Parte Gu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2017

10447866 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 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.
10/447,866 05/28/2003 Richard Yu Gu 50277-2100 2782
42425 7590 10/27/2017
HTPKMAN PAT F.RMO RFFTCFR RTNOTTAM/OR AFT F
EXAMINER
1 Almaden Boulevard LIN, SHEW FEN
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2017 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD YU GU, HARMEEK SINGH BEDI, and
ASHISH THUSOO
Appeal 2015-004518
Application 10/447,866
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 31—33, 35—38, and 40. Claims 1—30, 34, and 39 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-004518
Application 10/447,866
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed method relates that a source data structure that is
scanned once to obtain source data that is used for multiple merge operations
to merge source data into one or more destination data structures.
(Abstract.)
Claim 31 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
31. A method of combining data within a relational database
system, the method comprising:
performing a single scan of a source data structure to obtain
source data;
performing a first merge operation between a first subset of said
source data from said source data structure and data from a first
destination data structure to make:
a first modification to said first destination data structure,
said first modification including first modified data in said first
destination data structure, and
a first augmentation to said first subset of said source
data to reflect said first modified data in said first destination
data structure;
performing said first merge operation between a second subset
of said source data from said source data structure and said data from
said first destination data structure to make:
a second modification to said first destination data
structure, said second modification including second modified
data in said first destination data structure, and
a second augmentation to said second subset of data to
reflect said second modified data in said first destination data
structure;
while performing said first merge operation between said
second subset of said source data from said source data structure and
said data from said first destination data structure, performing a
second merge operation between said first subset of said source data
as augmented to reflect said first modification and data from a second
2
Appeal 2015-004518
Application 10/447,866
destination data structure to make a modification to said second
destination data structure;
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing
devices.
Claims 31—33, 35—38, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Tse et al. (US 6,895,471 Bl, issued May 17, 2005) and
Korenevsky et al. (US 7,249,140 Bl, issued July 24, 2007).
Claims 31—33, 35—38, and 40 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tse and Duddleson et al. (US 6,879,984 B2,
issued Apr. 12, 2005).
ANALYSIS
§103 Rejection—Tse and Korenevsky
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 5—6; see also
Reply Br. 3) that the combination of Tse and Korenevsky would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 31, which includes the limitation
“performing a second merge operation between said first subset of said
source data as augmented to reflect said first modification and data from a
second destination data structure to make a modification to said second
destination data structure.”
The Examiner found that Tse’s comparison between data received
from a source and data in a lookup cache from a first data set (e.g., a
dimension table) corresponds to the limitation “performing a first merge
operation between a first subset of said source data from said source data
structure and data from a first destination data structure.” (Final Act. 4.)
The Examiner further found that updating Tse’s lookup cache, which is
updated with new data and populates Tse’s fact table, corresponds to the
3
Appeal 2015-004518
Application 10/447,866
limitation “performing a second merge operation between said first subset of
said source data as augmented to reflect said first modification and data from
a second destination data structure to make a modification to said second
destination data structure.” (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 5.) In particular, the
Examiner found that modification “[ljookup cache can then be used to
populate fact table ‘a second destination data structure.’” (Ans. 5 (emphasis
omitted).) We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Tse relates to “synchronizing data in a data warehousing application.”
(Col. 1,11. 9-11.) Tse explains that “[i]n one embodiment, the data are
received from a source and compared to data in a lookup cache comprising
data from a first data set” (col. 4,11. 18—20) and that “[t]he lookup cache is
also updated with the new data and the unique identifiers” (col. 4,11. 24—26).
Tse’s Figure 4 depicts a block diagram for the flow of data in a data
transport pipeline for a data warehouse application (col. 5,11. 4—6), including
pipeline 400 to populate a first target database (e.g., dimension table 418)
and pipeline 405 to populate a second target database (e.g., fact table 428)
(col. 8,11. 27—31). Tse explains that “[i]n pipeline 400, operational data are
read from operational database 410” and “[instances of data that are not
duplicates are then added to dimension table 418 and also to lookup
cache 415.” (Col. 8,11. 36-42.) Tse further explains that “[i]n pipeline 405,
operational data are read from operational database 410, and static
lookup 420 is performed using lookup cache 415” and “[t]he data are passed
through aggregator 426 to transform the data into a format useful for
decision support, trend analysis, and the like, and then added to fact
table 428.” (Col. 8,11. 43^18.)
4
Appeal 2015-004518
Application 10/447,866
Although the Examiner cited to Tse’s lookup cache, which is updated
with the new data, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to
support a finding that Tse teaches the limitation “performing a second merge
operation between said first subset of said source data as augmented to
reflect said first modification and data from a second destination data
structure to make a modification to said second destination data structure.”
In particular, Tse explains that “[t]he lookup cache is also updated with the
new data and the unique identifiers” (col. 4,11. 24—26), but is silent with
respect to accessing second target database (e.g., fact table 428) in the
updating process. Moreover, in reference to Figure 4, Tse explains that
pipeline 400, in which operational data are read from operational
database 410 and non-duplicative data are added to dimension table 418
(col. 8,11. 36-42) is separate from pipeline 405, in which data are passed
through aggregator 426 and added to fact table 428 (col. 8,11. 43—48).
Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not shown that Tse teaches the
limitation “performing a second merge operation between said first subset of
said source data as augmented to reflect said first modification and data from
a second destination data structure.”
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “[t]he
merge has already happened when fact table 428 becomes involved” and
“[f]act table 428 is not implicated in the merge operation.” (App. Br. 6; see
also Reply Br. 3.)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 32, 33, and 35 depend from independent
claim 31. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 32, 33, and 35 under 35
5
Appeal 2015-004518
Application 10/447,866
U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 31.
Independent claim 36 recite limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to independent claim 31. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 36, as well as dependent claims 37, 38, and 40 for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claim 31.
§103 Rejection—Tse and Duddleson
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 31—33, 35—38, and 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tse and Duddleson for the same
reasons discussed with respect to the rejection of claims 31—33, 35—38, and
40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tse and Korenevsky.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 31—33, 35—38, and 40 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6