Ex Parte Ramshaw et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

12916014 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
12/916,014 10/29/2010 Lyle Harold Ramshaw 82263662 8759
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
JORDAN, KIMBERLY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LYLE HAROLD RAMSHAW,
HARUMI KUNO, JANET L. WIENER, WILLIAM K. WILKINSON,
UMESHWAR DAYAL, and STEFAN KROMPASS
Appeal 2016-0084801
Application 12/916,014
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—21, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Development LP. (Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-008480
Application 12/916,014
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to “providing] an efficient tool for
processing queries using appropriate multi-programming level (MPL)
settings[, wherein f]or each combination of MPL settings, points are
strategically selected to test and search for an operating envelope that
encompasses satisfactory settings for all user loads, even when the service
level objectives are heterogeneous.” (Specification Oct. 29, 2010 (“Spec.”)
116.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below (with minor
reformatting):
1. A computer system for determining multi-programming
levels to meet objectives for queries running on a database
system, comprising:
a processor that is adapted to execute stored instructions;
and
a memory device that stores instructions, the memory
device comprising computer-executable code adapted to:
define one or more isocontours based on a
performance metric for each user load;
evaluate the isocontours using one or more
workload management parameter settings;
calculate an operating envelope by correlating the
isocontours of multiple user loads; and
send a message to a workload manager, wherein the
message comprises workload management parameter
settings.
2
Appeal 2016-008480
Application 12/916,014
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Saghier et al
(“Saghier”)
Mehta et al.
(“Mehta”)
US 7,082,381 B1 July 25, 2006
US 2009/0178042 Al July 9, 2009
Abouzour et al., Automatic Tuning of the Multiprogramming
Level in Sybase SQL Anywhere, In Proc. Int’l Conf. on Data
Engineering Workshops, Workshop on Self-Managing Database
Systems (SMDB’10), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 99-104,
(2010) (“Abouzour”)
Claims 1—6, 12, 13, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable Saghier in view of Mehta. (See Final Office
Action (mailed July 6, 2015) (“Final Act.”) 2—7.)
Claims 7—11 and 14—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable Saghier, in view of Mehta, and further in view of
Abouzour. (See Final Act. 7—11.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal. We adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’Appeal Brief. (Ans. 12—14.) However,
we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
3
Appeal 2016-008480
Application 12/916,014
“isocontours ”
The Examiner finds that Saghier teaches or suggests the “define one
or more isocontours based on a performance metric for each user load”
limitation. (Final Act. 3.) Appellants contend that this limitation is not met
because “Saghier does not describe ‘isocontours based on a performance
metric for each user load,’ or ‘for a plurality of user loads’ as recited in
[independent] claims 1, 12, and 20.” (Br. 8, 10-11.) Specifically, according
to Appellants, Saghier describes “curves” and “does not describe isocontours
at all.” (Id.) Moreover, the “calculation of the curves do not show the
boundary between acceptable and unacceptable values, but instead
corresponds to estimated raw value of throughput or response time for a
given load.” (Id.) Appellants point to paragraph 27 of the Specification for
their contention that the term “isocontours” “specifically excludes raw
performance measurements.” (Id.) According to Appellants, isocontours
“represent combinations of settings at which performance is at an acceptable
level.” (Id. at 7, citing to Spec. 127.)
Even assuming arguendo that Appellants’ construction of
“isocontours” (as “represent[ing] combinations of settings at which
performance is at an acceptable level” and “excludes raw performance
measurements”) is correct, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
“Saghier’s curves are not raw values themselves [but rather] best-fit lines[,]
which may be based on raw performance data[, therefore, the curves
themselves are not raw performance measurements.” (Ans. 12—13.) We
also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Figure 2 of Saghier teaches or
suggests that the range between the two curves (in Figure 2) “discloses the
curves are boundaries of acceptable and even optimal performance/values.”
4
Appeal 2016-008480
Application 12/916,014
(Ans. 13.) Appellants do not respond to the Examiner’s findings nor do
Appellants respond to the Examiner’s further finding that the Specification,
similar to the teachings in Saghier, discloses “us[ing] throughput and
response time curves as isocontours [in] Figures 2A-2C and associated
descriptions.” (Id.) Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error.
“operating envelope ”
The Examiner finds that Saghier teaches or suggests the “calculate an
operating envelope by correlating the isocontours of multiple user loads”
limitation. (Final Act. 3.) According to the Examiner:
Saghier Figure 2 shows a shaded region which is found to be an
optimal range. The optimal range is found by determining the
load at which the distance between the two curves is maximized
(highest throughput and lowest response time) and then defining
a range around this optimal load through various methods
(including a percentage, which could conceivably include the
entire area between the two curves)....
(Ans. 13.) Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because the claimed
“operating envelope” is not calculated using the isocontours of multiple user
loads because the curves of Saghier are not isocontours. (Br. 8—9, 11.)
Appellants further contend that the “described regions of Saghier are not
bounded by isocontours, but instead based on hardcoded load values, a
range around an optimal load value, or specific percentages of a maximum
distance between the Saghier curves.” (Br. 8—9, 11, emphasis added.) In
other words, Appellants are further contending that “operating envelope”
5
Appeal 2016-008480
Application 12/916,014
cannot be based, among other things, on a range around an optimal load
value. {Id. at 8, citing to paragraph 352 of the Specification for support.)
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. As discussed
above, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Saghier teaches or
suggests isocontours as claimed. We further agree with the Examiner’s
findings that Saghier teaches or suggests the limitation at issue. (Final Act.
3 (“determine optimal range based on the distance between the throughput
and response time curve across various loads”); Ans. 13—14 (“Saghier Figure
2 shows a shaded region[,] which is found to be an optimal range . . . .”)
Importantly, we decline Appellants’ invitation to require the construction of
the limitation at issue to exclude “hardcoded load values, a range around an
optimal load value, or specific percentages of a maximum distance between
the Saghier curves.” (Br. 8—9, emphasis added.) The portions of the
Specification pointed to by Appellants do not support such a construction
nor do Appellants explain why the Examiner’s construction of the limitation
is overly broad or unreasonable. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) (holding that although the claims are interpreted in light of the
specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims).
“complex workload objective ”
Claim 5 further recites “wherein a workload is subject to complex
workload objectives.” The Examiner finds that while Saghier “does not
explicitly disclose” this limitation, but Mehta teaches or suggests this
2 Appellants points to paragraph 25 but paragraph 25 does not discuss
“operating envelope.” (See Spec. 125.) We assume Appellants intend to
reference paragraph 35, which discusses “operating envelope.” (See id. at
135.)
6
Appeal 2016-008480
Application 12/916,014
limitation. (Final Act. 5.) Appellants cite to paragraph 25 of the
Specification and contend that a “complex workload objective” must have
more than one distinct objective:
As disclosed in the present application, “[a] complex workload
objective 150 may include the possibility that a workload 140
contains multiple subsets of queries 144. Each subset of queries
144 may have distinct objectives.” See Application, para. [0025].
(Br. 12.) According to Appellants, since Mehta “query subsets [] each have
[sic] a distinct objective,” Mehta fails to teach or suggest this claim. (Id.)
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. We agree with
the Examiner that the portion of the Specification cited by Appellants is “an
example (not a definition).” (Ans. 14.) Importantly, the paragraph states
that “[a] complex workload objective 150 may include the possibility that
. . . . Each subset of queries 144 may have distinct objectives.” (Spec. 125,
emphases added.) Therefore, a “complex workload objective” need not have
more than one distinct objective as Appellants suggests.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claims 1, 5, 12, and 20 and sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of these claims. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of
claims 2-4, 6—11, 13—19, and 21, which depend either from claim 1 or 12,
and are not argued separately. (Br. 12—14.)
DECISION
We sustain the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal 2016-008480
Application 12/916,014
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
8