Ex Parte Ma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2018

13728345 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131728,345 12/27/2012
26890 7590 03/20/2018
JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA US, INC.
10000 INNOVATION DRIVE
DAYTON, OH 45342
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lu Ma
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.
21227 (2704.154US1) 7222
EXAMINER
AGHARAHIMI, F ARHAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2018 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):
michelle. boldman @teradata.com
jam es.stover@teradata.com
td.uspto@outlook.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LU MA and GRACE KW AN-ON AU
Appeal2017-007672 1
Application 13/728,345
Technology Center 2100
Before LARRY J. HUME, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-12, 14--18, and 20, which are all claims pending in the
application. Appellants have canceled claims 13 and 19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Teradata US, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-007672
Application 13/728,345
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
"techniques for ordering predicates in column partitioned databases for
query optimization ... [and a ]ccording to an embodiment, a method for
predicate ordering is provided." Spec. i-f 5.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis and formatting added to contested limitation):
1. A method implemented and programmed within a
non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and
processed by a processor, the processor configured to execute
the method, comprising:
analyzing, via the processor, a query to identify all
predicates for each base column partitioned (CP) table;
grouping, via the processor, the predicates into groups,
each group associated with a list of predicates with a same set
of column partitions using a summary structure for all
predicates on a single CP table that records a total cost to
evaluate those predicates and a combined selectivity for those
predicates; and
ordering, via the processor, the predicates of each group
and the groups for the query's execution, each group
representing a predicate-CP node includes a particular summary
structure and
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Oct. 24, 2016); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Apr. 24, 2017); Examiner's
Second or Subsequent Answer ("Ans.," mailed Feb. 22, 2017); Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed Mar. 17, 2016); and the original Specification
("Spec.," filed Dec. 27, 2012).
2
Appeal2017-007672
Application 13/728,345
each column partition referenced within a particular
predicate-CP node is linked to a column partition node which
records a column partition index, a column type, a column
width, and a compression ratio for that column partition and a
total number of logical rows that has to be accessed with that
column partition.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Cox et al. ("Cox") 3 US 2004/0225865 Al Nov. 11, 2004
Faunce et al. ("Faunce") US 2008/0235181 Al Sept. 25, 2008
Hu et al. ("Hu") US 2010/0281017 Al Nov. 4, 2010
Franke et al. ("Franke") US 2012/0084278 Al Apr. 5, 2012
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-12, 14--18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Faunce, Franke, and Hu.
Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3. 4
3 The Cox reference was relied upon by the Examiner as evidence that "the
disclosed metadata, such as column type, column width compression ratio,
and total number of rows was well known in the art" at the time of the
invention. Ans. 4.
4 The Examiner incorrectly states claim 13 is also subject to the rejection
under § 103. However, claim 13 has been canceled, and is not before us on
Appeal.
3
Appeal2017-007672
Application 13/728,345
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6-8), we decide the appeal
of the obviousness rejection of claims 1-12, 14--18, and 20 on the basis of
representative claim 1. 5
ISSUE
Appellants argue (App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2) the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination
of Faunce, Franke, and Hu is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a method that includes, inter alia, the step of "ordering ... the
predicates of each group and the groups for the query's execution, each
group representing a predicate-CP node includes a particular summary
structure," wherein
each column partition referenced within a particular predicate-
CP node is linked to a column partition node which records a
column partition index, a column type, a column width, and a
compression ratio for that column partition and a total number
of logical rows that has to be accessed with that column
partition,
as recited in claim 1?
5 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv).
In addition, when Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
4
Appeal2017-007672
Application 13/728,345
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 1 and,
unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis
as follows.
In the Final Action, and with respect to the contested limitations, the
Examiner finds:
Hu discloses column partition referenced within a particular
predicate-CP node is linked to a column partition node (see Hu.
Fig. l,for partitions l JOa-l JOn) which records a column
partition index (see Hu. paragraph [0023],for partition index
metadata l 14a-l 14n), a column type, a column width, and a
compression ratio for that column partition and a total number
of logical rows that has to be accessed with that column
partition.
Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner further finds it would have been obvious to
combine Faunce and Franke with Hu "for the benefit of query pruning via
query rewrite." Final Act. 5 (citing Hu, Abstract). We are unpersuaded of
error in these findings.
5
Appeal2017-007672
Application 13/728,345
Appellants contend Hu does not provide any teaching or suggestion
"concerning column partitions, or a column partition referenced within a
particular predicate-CP node which is linked to a column partition node, as
recited in claim 1 of the present application." App. Br. 8. Appellants further
argue, "[a]s neither Faunce, Franke, nor Hu, taken singularly or in
combination teach this limitation, it is believed that independent claims 12
and 18, and the claims that depend therefrom are patentable over the cited
references." Id.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Ru's partition index
metadata 114a-114 n teaches partition index metadata used to simulate a
global index. Ans. 3 (citing Hu Fig. 1; i-fi-f l 0, 23). The Examiner further
finds, and Appellants do not dispute, the claimed column type, column
width, compression ratio, and total number of rows was known to one of
skill in the art, as evidenced by the cited disclosure of Cox. Ans. 4 (citing
Cox i-f 185). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the contested limitation
would have been obvious in view of the cited teachings of Hu and the
knowledge of one of skill in the art.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue:
The Examiner's Answer does not address, nor dispute,
the Applicant's assertion that it is not seen that paragraph 23,
FIG. 1, nor any other section or figure of Hu, includes any
teaching concerning column partitions, or "a column partition
referenced within a particular predicate-CP node which is
linked to a column partition node" as recited in each one of
independent claims 12, and 18 of the present application.
Reply Br. 2.
6
Appeal2017-007672
Application 13/728,345
We disagree with Appellants' argument that the Examiner did not
address or otherwise dispute Appellants' contentions. See Final Act. 4--5;
and see Ans. 3--4. Rather, Appellants' arguments do not address the
Examiner's findings, but essentially amount to no more than reciting the
disputed limitation and generally alleging the cited prior art is deficient.
This is insufficient to persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings.
Moreover, Appellants did not respond to the Examiner's analysis that
concluded Appellants' attempt to distinguish over the cited prior art
improperly relied upon non-functional descriptive material (NFDM) with
respect to the recited types of information found in the column partition
node. The Examiner concludes there is no functional relationship between
the claimed invention and the fields recorded in the column partition node
and, as such, represents NFDM that has been given no patentable weight.
Final Act. 15; Ans. 4. 6 In particular, the Examiner finds the column
partition node is recited as recording NFDM in the form of a column
partition index, a column type, a column width, a compression ratio for the
column partition, and a total number of logical rows that is required to be
6 See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BP AI 2008)
(precedential); see also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In
re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Ex parte
Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative)
("[N]onfunctional descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an
invention that would have otherwise been anticipated by the prior art."),
ajfd, 191 F. App'x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Rule 36); Ex parte Curry,
84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BP AI 2005) (informative) ("Nonfunctional
descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have
otherwise been obvious."), ajfd, No. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Rule 36).
Thus, non-functional descriptive material does not confer patentability to
inventions that are otherwise either anticipated or obvious over the prior art.
7
Appeal2017-007672
Application 13/728,345
accessed with the particular column partition, none of which, according to
the Examiner, affects the operation or outcome of the claimed method. Id.
In further support of our ultimate Decision to affirm, we note Appellants do
not address or otherwise rebut the Examiner's findings with respect to
NFDM. Arguments not made are waived. 7
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do
we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, and grouped claims 2-12, 14--18, and 20 which fall therewith. See
Claim Grouping, supra.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the
Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in
the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown.
7 However, even assuming the metadata is not NFDM, as noted in our
analysis above, the Examiner provides sufficient findings and evidence to
support the conclusion that the contested limitation would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
8
Appeal2017-007672
Application 13/728,345
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 1-12, 14--18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art
combination of record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12, 14--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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9