Ex Parte Muras et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2017

13618680 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 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.
13/618,680 09/14/2012 Brian Robert Muras ROC920030406US2 6879
130683 7590 04/27/2017
MiHHIetnn Rentlinaer fTRMP^
EXAMINER
401 S. 4th Street, Suite 2600
Louisville, KY 40202
GOFMAN, ALEX N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2017 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):
u sptomail @ middle tonlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN ROBERT MURAS
and JOHN MATTHEW SANTOSUOSSO
Appeal 2014-008618
Application 13/618,680
Technology Center 2100
Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2014-008618
Application 13/618,680
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for database
query optimizers. Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for generating an access plan, the method
comprising the steps of:
maintaining in non-volatile memory a respective set of
past performance statistics for each of a plurality of previously
executed database queries, wherein the sets of past performance
statistics are associated with respective database queries, and
wherein each set of past performance statistics includes one or
more of number of rows updated, inserted, or deleted by a
respective database query, number of rows fetched by a
respective database query, or host variables for a respective
database query;
in response to receiving a current database query,
identifying a particular set of past performance statistics from
among the sets of past performance statistics for the plurality of
previously executed database queries that relates to the current
database query; and
generating and storing an access plan for the current
database query based at least in part on the particular set of past
performance statistics identified in response to receiving the
current database query.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—12, 15, and 17—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Ellis et al. (US 6,360,214 Bl;
issued Mar. 19, 2002) (“Ellis”) and Zait et al. (US 2004/0210563 Al;
published Oct. 21, 2004) (“Zait”).
2
Appeal 2014-008618
Application 13/618,680
Claims 13, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ellis, Zait, and Ziauddin et al.
(US 2005/0177557 Al; published Aug. 11, 2005) (“Ziauddin”).
ANALYSIS
The parent1 to the instant application was subject to an appeal (No.
2009-012897) (hereafter “Prior Appeal”), challenging the Examiner’s
anticipation and obviousness rejections over Ellis and the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections over Ellis and Ziauddin.2 The Prior Appeal was
decided on May 24, 2012, affirming the Examiner in part.3 Following the
Prior Appeal, Appellants filed the instant application. The only difference
between independent claim 1 in the parent application (as addressed in the
Prior Appeal), the rejection of which was affirmed, and independent claim 1
in the instant application is the addition of the claim limitation:
wherein the sets of past performance statistics are associated
with respective database queries, and wherein each set of past
performance statistics includes one or more of number of rows
updated, inserted, or deleted by a respective database query,
number of rows fetched by a respective database query, or host
variables for a respective database query.
See App. Br. 9.
1 Now issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,346,761.
2 Claims 1, 3—13, 16, and 18—21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Ellis. Claim 22 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Ellis. Claims 14, 15, and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Ellis and Ziauddin.
3 The rejections of claims 1 and 3—18 were affirmed. The rejections of
claims 19—22 were reversed.
3
Appeal 2014-008618
Application 13/618,680
After considering each of Appellants’ arguments, we agree with the
Examiner. We refer to and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
as set forth in the Examiner’s Answer and in the Final Office Action from
which this appeal was taken (Ans. 2—11; Final Act. 2—9). Further, a
substantial portion of the arguments Appellants present for appeal have
already been addressed and decided in the Prior Appeal. Therefore, we also
refer to and adopt the findings and conclusion set forth in the Decision on
Appeal, entered May 24, 2012, in the Prior Appeal (“Prior Decision”). Our
discussion here will be limited to the following points of emphasis.
Claim 1
“maintaining in non-volatile memory ...”
Appellants contend Ellis fails to teach “maintaining ... a respective
set of past performance statistics for each of a plurality of previously
executed database queries, wherein the sets of past performance statistics are
associated with respective database queries,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 10. Specifically, Appellants argue Ellis does not disclose or
suggest “any particular arrangement or grouping of database statistics into
sets that are specific to particular database queries.” Id. Appellants argue
“[w]hile Ellis does store statistics, these statistics are not ‘for’ and
‘associated with’ a particular database query. . . [but rather] are ‘for’ and
‘associated with’ columns in a database.” Id. at 9—10; see Reply Br. 2, 4.
Appellants presented substantially the same arguments regarding this
limitation in the Prior Appeal. See Prior Decision 4—5.
As in the Prior Appeal, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments and agree with the Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2—3.
Ellis describes a database management system (DBMS), where statistics
4
Appeal 2014-008618
Application 13/618,680
regarding data stored in a database are automatically generated as needed
during query processing. Ellis col. 3,11. 4—7. When a query is processed,
the DBMS recognizes that statistics have not been generated for some
component of the data accessed by an execution plan. Ellis col. 3,11. 7—14.
The statistics are automatically generated and the query optimization
proceeds with selecting an execution plan using the actual statistics. Ellis
col. 3,11. 7—14, col. 8,11. 29-32 (“[t]his selection process typically involves
analyzing statistics”). Ellis states “[djatabase statistics play an essential role
in identifying execution plans.” Ellis col. 7,11. 9—10. An “execution plan” is
a plan that implements the objectives of the SQL query. Ellis col. 1,11. 31—
35; col. 8,11. 26-32.
As to Appellants’ argument that the statistics in Ellis are “for” or
“associated with” columns or tables in a database rather than queries, we are
not persuaded because the data is accessed via SQL query by way of various
procedural operations, such as, for example, table scans and joins. See Ellis
col. 6,11. 48—60, col. 7,11. 11—13; col. 9,11. 37—47; see, e.g., col. 8,11. 6—10.
In other words, the statistics are for tables that will be accessed by the SQL
query, and are, therefore, “associated” with respective database queries. See
Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that Ellis describes periodically updating
stored execution plans based on database statistics. Ans. 3 (citing col. 9,
11. 22—26). As such, we agree with the Examiner that Ellis describes the
disputed limitation, as recited in claim 1.
“in response to receiving...”
Appellants further contend Ellis fails to teach or suggest “in response
to receiving a current database query, identifying a particular set of past
5
Appeal 2014-008618
Application 13/618,680
performance statistics from among the sets of past performance statistics for
the plurality of previously executed database queries that relates to the
current database query,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-10. Appellants
contend the portion of Ellis relied upon by the Examiner “is completely
silent with regard to the use of past performance statistics for previously
executed database queries that relate to a current database query.” Id. at 10.
Appellants further argue column 8, lines 33 through 39 of Ellis “mentions
reusing an execution plan; however, the passage does not address identifying
performance statistics for a particular execution plan.” Id. Appellants
presented substantially the same arguments regarding this limitation in the
Prior Appeal. See Prior Decision 5.
As in the Prior Appeal, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments and agree with the Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 3, Ans. 3^4.
As discussed supra, Ellis describes processing a database query by
generating database statistics for the data accessed and selecting an
execution plan based on these statistics. Ellis col. 3,11. 7—14, col. 8,11. 32—
39. Ellis explicitly describes that the DBMS searches for a previously
identified execution plan for an SQL query that is applied to the database.
Ellis col. 9,11. 48—52; col. 8,11. 36—39. That is, Ellis generates statistics for
accessing a specific component of data for a database query that is currently
being applied. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Ellis describes the
disputed limitation, as recited in claim 1.
“generating and storing...”
Appellants further contend Ellis fails to teach “generating and storing
an access plan for the current database query based at least in part on the
6
Appeal 2014-008618
Application 13/618,680
particular set of past performance statistics identified in response to
receiving the current database query,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10.
Appellants argue “Ellis does not disclose any functionality whereby an
access plan is generated or stored based upon past performance statistics
generated for and associated with another database query.” Id. at 11.
Appellants presented substantially the same arguments regarding this
limitation in the Prior Appeal. See Prior Decision 5—6.
As in the Prior Appeal, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments and agree with the Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3^4.
Ellis explicitly describes that the execution plan (access plan) is generated
using statistics and is stored once a query is executed. Ellis col. 8,11. 32—39,
col. 9,11. 22—25, 45—52. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Ellis
describes the disputed limitation, as recited in claim 1.
“wherein the sets of past performance statistics ...”
Appellants contend Ellis fails to disclose “a respective set of past
performance statistics . . .wherein each set of past performance statistics
includes one or more of [a] number of rows updated, inserted, or deleted by
a respective database query, number of rows fetched by a respective
database query, or host variables for a respective database query,” as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 11. Appellants argue “irrespective of the fact that Zait
arguably discloses performance statistics,” “Zait does not disclose or suggest
any saving or persisting of execution statistics with an execution plan.” Id.
at 12.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because they do not
address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner — namely, the
7
Appeal 2014-008618
Application 13/618,680
Examiner relies on the combination of Ellis and Zait, whereas Appellants’
arguments are directed to each reference individually. Nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner
found, and we agree, Ellis teaches all the limitations in claim 1, including
statistics. Final Act. 2—A\ Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on Zait to teach the
specific type of performance statistic claimed. Ans. 4. Appellants do not
dispute that Zait teaches such performance statistics. See App. Br. 12. As
such, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Zait and Ellis
describes the disputed limitation, as recited in claim 1.
Appellants further contend “the Examiner’s logic in this case is
entirely driven by hindsight analysis.” App. Br. 13. This contention is not
persuasive because Appellants do not identify, nor do we discern, any
knowledge that the Examiner relied upon that was gleaned only from
Appellants’ disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and, therefore, sustain that rejection. For
the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
18 and 23, which recite substantially similar limitations, and for which
Appellants present the same arguments. See App. Br. 8—14. In addition, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, and 5, which were
not argued separately. See App. Br. 18.
8
Appeal 2014-008618
Application 13/618,680
Claim 6
Appellants repeat many of the same arguments as presented for claim
I, which we do not find persuasive for the same reasons as set forth above.
See App. Br. 14—15. In addition, Appellants contend Ellis does not disclose
“analyzing the performance of an access plan that is ‘identified within’ a set
of past performance statistics.” App. Br. 15. Appellants argue “the statistics
in Ellis are associated with tables and columns, and not particular database
queries.” Id. Appellants presented substantially the same arguments
regarding this limitation in the Prior Appeal. See Prior Decision 6.
As in the Prior Appeal, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments and agree with the Examiner’s findings. Ans. 5; Final Act. 6.
As discussed supra with respect to claim 1, Ellis describes generating
statistics for queries in order to select an execution plan. See Ellis col. 8,
II. 26—39. Further, Ellis describes that when the statistics have changed and
the execution plan is no longer valid, a new execution plan is generated
using the new statistics. Ellis col. 9,11. 44-47. That is, performance of an
execution plan is reevaluated based on new statistics and a new execution
plan is generated using the new statistics if the execution plan is invalid. As
such, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and, therefore, sustain that rejection. In
addition, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 9 and 10,
which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 21.
9
Appeal 2014-008618
Application 13/618,680
Claim 15
Appellants repeat many of the same arguments as presented for claim
1, which we do not find persuasive for the same reasons as set forth above.
App. Br. 15—17. In addition, Appellants contend “Ellis does not disclose
deciding whether to re-use the current access plan for the current database
query based on the analysis of the performance of the previously executed
database query.” App. Br. 17. Appellants argue “it appears the only
analysis that is performed is determining whether an execution plan exists
for a particular query. If such a plan does exist, it is reused instead of
generating a new execution plan.” Id. Appellants presented substantially
the same argument regarding this limitation in the Prior Appeal. See Prior
Decision 6—7.
As in the Prior Appeal, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments. As discussed supra, Ellis describes evaluating an execution plan
and determining whether that execution plan is valid based on new statistics.
Ellis col. 9,11. 44-47. That is, the execution plan is evaluated to determine
whether to re-use that execution plan for a current query based on new
statistics.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and, therefore, sustain that rejection. In
addition, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 16, 17,
and 19—22, which were not argued separately (App. Br. 17, 20), for the same
reasons.
10
Appeal 2014-008618
Application 13/618,680
Remaining Dependent Claims
Appellants present arguments for dependent claims 4, 7, 8, and 11—14.
App. Br. 18—21. These are substantially the same arguments as presented
for dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12—15 in the Prior Appeal, which
correspond to the claims argued here. See Prior Decision 8—9. As in the
Prior Appeal, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with
the Examiner’s findings. See Ans. 6—9; Final Act. 4, 6, 7, 10. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—23 are
affirmed.
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
11