10403500 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 13, 2010)

Ex Parte Peleg et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 13, 2010

10403500 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 13, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte NITZAN PELEG, YUVAL SHERMAN, and HANSJORG ZELLER ____________________ Appeal 2009-004650 Application 10/403,500 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Decided: April 13, 2010 ____________________ Before LEE E. BARRETT, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-004650 Application 10/403,500 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008). We REVERSE. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention is a system for refreshing a table that includes a refresh log having a plurality of entries (Spec. 25, Abst.). Each record of the refresh log may include an epoch number (Spec. [0031]). The epoch number is used to identify a group of records that have been added to the refresh log since a previous refresh operation was performed (id.). The epoch number helps to (1) avoid inclusion of records corresponding to transactions that occurred outside of a refresh range, or (2) omitting records corresponding to transactions that occurred within a particular refresh time range (id.). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim(s) Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A system for refreshing a table to produce a refreshed table, the system comprising: a refresh log that contains a plurality of entries, each of the plurality of entries comprising an epoch identifier, wherein the epoch identifier identifies a subset of the plurality of entries that have been added to the refresh log since a previous refresh operation on the table, wherein the epoch identifier is adapted to synchronize refresh operations applied to network-distributed elements of the table with refresh operations applied to the refresh log; and Appeal 2009-004650 Application 10/403,500 3 a refresh manager that performs a refresh operation on the table using entries that have corresponding epoch identifiers, wherein the refresh manager is configured to increment the epoch identifier before performing the refresh operation. References Pereira 6,122,640 Sep. 19, 2000 Witkowski 6,125,360 Sep. 26, 2000 Elsbernd 6,529,904 B1 Mar. 4, 2003 Nathan Wallace, Installing Oracle 8.0.5 on Red Hat Linux 5.x, E-GINEER, Apr. 28, 1999, www.e-gineer.com/v1/instructions/install- oracle805-on-redhat5x.htm (hereinafter “E-gineer”). Frank Naudé, Glossary of Terms: T, ORACLE FAQ, Feb. 5, 2002, web.archive.org/web/20020221071020/http://www.orafaq.com (hereinafter “Oracle FAQ”). Confusing Computer Terminology Explained, LINFO, Aug. 22, 2006, http://www.linfo.org/confusing_terminology.html (hereinafter “LINFO”). Rejections Claims 1-4, and 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Witkowski and Elsbernd. Claims 5, 14-17, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Witkowski, Elsbernd and E-gineer. Claims 6, 23, 24, and 26-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Witkowski, Elsbernd and Pereira. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Witkowski, Elsbernd, E-gineer, and Pereira. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Witkowski, Elsbernd, Pereira and E-gineer. Appeal 2009-004650 Application 10/403,500 4 ISSUE 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-30 Appellants assert that their invention is not obvious over Witkowski and Elsbernd because neither reference discloses all the features of representative claims 1 and 11 (See App. Br. 9). In particular, Appellants contend Witkowski fails to disclose an "epoch identifier" (id. at 10). Instead, Appellants argue, the Witkowski reference teaches “‘performing incremental refreshes to materialized views defined by one-to-N lossless joins’” and thus, discloses a system change number (SCN) that is essentially a time stamp (id.). The Examiner finds the SCN of Witkowski is a number assigned to transactions in a commit time order and a delta table contains the rowids of the rows in the table which have changed (Ans. 24 and 27). Thus, the Examiner finds the SCNs are epoch identifiers (Ans. 27). The Examiner finds that "it is generally known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of [the] invention that a transaction alone can include several other transactions or several queries" (Ans. 27-28). The Examiner next finds each transaction gets its own SCN; queries are inside a transaction; and each query gets the SCN of the transaction it was in (Ans. 28). The Examiner finds the delta table is formed using SCNs added to the refresh log since a previous refresh operation on the table (Ans. 28). As such, the Examiner finds that "even if only one SCN is identified as being a member of the Dlt_Ti, it still identifies a subset of the plurality of entries that have been applied to the refresh log since a previous operation on the table (since the SCN identifies at least one transaction and a transaction can have many changes (entries) in it[)] (Ans. 28). Appeal 2009-004650 Application 10/403,500 5 Issue: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Witkowski teaches or suggests an epoch identifier that identifies a subset of the plurality of entries that have been added to the refresh log since a previous refresh operation of the table? FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Witkowski Reference (1) Witkowski describes a method and apparatus for performing incremental refreshes to materialized views (col. 4, ll. 37-38). (2) An SCN (system change number) is defined as a "logical number assigned to transactions in commit time order. Each change is associated with the [SCN] of the transaction that performed the change," and the SCN associated with that change is indicative of the logical time that the change was made in the database. (col. 9, ll. 17-22). (3) A delta table contains the rowids of the rows in a table Tn that have changed (col. 9, ll. 13-15). (4) The database system maintains a “delta table” SNLog_Ti "that stores, for each changed row of Table Ti, (1) the rowid of the changed row, and (2) the scn indicates the logical time at which the row was changed" (col. 9, ll. 45-48). PRINCIPLES OF LAW Obviousness In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of Appeal 2009-004650 Application 10/403,500 6 obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). ANALYSIS We find that Witkowski discloses that (1) the SCN is a logical number assigned to transactions in commit time order, and (2) the SCN indicates the logical time at which a change was made (FF 2). Based on our review of the portions of Witkowski cited by the Examiner, we find Witkowski is a time stamp represented by a number. We also find that while SCNs are associated with changes (FF 2 and FF 4), there is no indication that those changes relate to entries that have been added to the refresh log since a previous refresh operation. Thus, we find the SCN of Witkowski does not correspond to the epoch identifier of representative claim 1. Accordingly, after considering the totality of the record before us, we find Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in finding that Witkowski teaches or suggests an epoch identifier that identifies a subset of the plurality of entries that have been added to the refresh log since a previous refresh operation on the table. CONCLUSION Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in finding claim 1 is obvious over Witkowski and Elsbernd. Claims 11, 14, and 23 all recite an epoch identifier that identifies a subset of the plurality of entries that have been added to the refresh log since a previous refresh operation on the table and thus, for the reasons set forth above, we find the Examiner erred in Appeal 2009-004650 Application 10/403,500 7 finding claims 11, 14, and 23 obvious over Witkowski and Elsbernd; Witkowski, Elsbernd, and E-gineer; and Witkowski, Elsbernd, and Pereira. Since claims 2-10 depend from representative and independent claim 1; claims 12 and 13 depend from independent claim 11; claims 15-22 depend from independent claim 14; and claims 24-30 depend from independent claim 23, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-10, 12, 13, 15-22, and 24-30. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, and 7-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Witkowski and Elsbernd is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 14-17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Witkowski, Elsbernd and E-gineer is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 23, 24, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Witkowski, Elsbernd and Pereira is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Witkowski, Elsbernd, E-gineer, and Pereira is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Witkowski, Elsbernd, Pereira and E-gineer is reversed. REVERSED Vsh Appeal 2009-004650 Application 10/403,500 8 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD MAIL STOP 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528