Ex Parte GUO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

13750873 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131750,873 01125/2013 Liang GUO
42425 7590 04/02/2018
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.
50277-3938 1742
EXAMINER
KERZHNER,ALEKSANDR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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 LIANG GUO, VIVEKANANDHAN RAJA,
AMIT GANESH, and JOSHUA GOULD
Appeal2017-007078
Application 13/750,873 1
Technology Center 2100
Before IRVINE. BRANCH, STACEY G. WHITE, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-9 and 11-19, which are all of the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to "techniques for activity tracking, data
classification, and in-database archiving." Spec. Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Oracle International
Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007078
Application 13/750,873
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
a database management system (DBMS) adding one or
more activity columns to a database table, wherein each of the
one or more activity columns is associated with a particular
activity of a set of activities, wherein the one or more activity
columns include at least one activity column associated with
reads;
the DBMS, in response to receiving a database command
that accesses one or more rows of the database table, determining
one or more activities that the database command performs,
wherein at least one activity of the one or more activities
performs a read;
the DBMS storing activity information for each of the one
or more rows in metadata that is external to tables of the DBMS;
in response to a determination that the activity information
should be flushed from the metadata to the database table, the
DBMS updating an activity column of the one or more activity
columns based on the activity information for each of the one or
more rows stored in the metadata;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices.
Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Arora (US 7,251,669 Bl;
issued July 31, 2007), Arakawa (US 2010/0077168 Al; published March 25,
2010) and Lomet (US 5,933,838; issued August 3, 1999). Final Act. 2-8.
Claims 2, 5, 12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Arora, Arakawa, Lomet, and
2
Appeal2017-007078
Application 13/750,873
Shimshoni (US 2006/0085485 Al; published April 20, 2006). Final Act. 8-
11.
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Arora, Arakawa, Lomet, and Sun Hsu
(US 2007/0156790 Al; published July 5, 2007). Final Act. 11-12.
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Arora, Arakawa, Lomet, and
Kagalwala (US 2003/0105732 Al; published June 5, 2003). Final Act. 12-
13.
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Arora, Arakawa, Lomet, and Nori
(US 2008/0250073 Al; published Oct. 9, 2008). Final Act. 13-14.
ANALYSIS 2
We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Appellants argue "Arora would not determine that a received database
command performs a read activity" because, while Aurora discloses
detecting activities such as a write command using a trigger, a trigger cannot
detect a database read. App. Br. 5; see id. 5-6. We find this argument
2 Because Appellants argue all claims collectively based on arguments
presented with respect to claim 1, our decision turns on our analysis of the
rejection of claim 1; and, except for our ultimate decision, we do not further
address the remaining claims. See App. Br. 15.
3
Appeal2017-007078
Application 13/750,873
unpersuasive of error because the Examiner finds the "determining"
limitation to be disclosed by the combined teachings of Arora and Arakawa
and not by either reference alone. See Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 3. "Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's clarification in the
Examiner's Answer of the basis for the rejection but instead argue that the
Examiner's response renders the rejection "unclear." Reply Br. 2 ("In light
of the Answer citing a combination of references for teaching the
determination, the [F]inal Office action (pages 2-3) is unclear to instead
assert, 'Arora teaches a method comprising ... determining one or more
activities that the database command performs."'). Based on the record
before us, we do not find the Examiner's rejection to be unclear.
Appellants argue "Arakawa does not disclose activity information for
each of the one or more rows" because, while "Arakawa may track activity
for individual segments ... a segment is not a row." App. Br. 6. We find
this argument unpersuasive in view of the Examiner's finding that the
argued limitation is disclosed by the combined teachings of Arora and
Arakawa. Appellants do not persuasively rebut this finding. See generally
Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants argue "Arora may teach updating, and Lomet may teach
flushing, but these particular references make an awkward combination."
App. Br. 7. We find this argument unpersuasive of error because "[t]he test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather,
4
Appeal2017-007078
Application 13/750,873
the test is what the combined teachings of [those] references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir.
1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be
physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review"); and
In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures").
Appellants' "awkward combination" amounts to an attempt to bodily
incorporate the structures, which is not a persuasive argument against
obviousness.
Appellants' contentions supporting the argument that "Lomet is
deficient" (App. Br. 8-12) are unpersuasive of error because, as the
Examiner correctly points out, Appellants' contentions consider Lomet "in a
vacuum" (Ans. 5). We do not find a persuasive rebuttal to the Examiner's
response to Appellants' argument. See generally Reply Br. 5---6.
Accordingly, because we are not persuaded of error, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-9 and 11-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5