Ex Parte Schneider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

11931947 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111931,947 10/31/2007
137610 7590 06/29/2016
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP -
Oracle International Corporation
379 Lytton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Donovan Alfred Schneider
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.
OIC0182DlUS 1837
EXAMINER
BLACK, LINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
svpatents@sheppardmullin.com
kmestressat@sheppardmullin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONOVAN ALFRED SCHNEIDER,
EDWARD SHAW-LEE SUEN, and KAZI ATIF-UZ ZAMAN 1
Appeal2015-000813
Application 11/931,94 7
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Technology
The application relates to query processing in a database. Spec. i-f 128.
"[T]o improve performance by avoiding unnecessary processing .... the
results of prior queries are stored in a local cache ... that can be more
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is Oracle Corp.
(App. Br. 2), though a subsequently filed Statement Under 37 CPR 3.73(b)
dated February 29, 2016, identifies the assignee as Oracle America, Inc.
1
Appeal2015-000813
Application 11/931,947
quickly and easily accessed" than the disk drive. Id. il I 04. The application
teaches "[t]echniques to improve query caching performance by efficiently
selecting queries stored in a cache for evaluation and increasing the cache hit
rate by allowing for inexact matches." Abstract.
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the key
limitations emphasized:
1. A non-transitory computer-usable storage medium storing
instructions executable by a processor, said instructions
compnsmg:
a first set of instructions configured to maintain a select
list index of a plurality of cached queries,
wherein said select list index comprises key field
entries and data item field entries,
said select list index stores one or more unique
items,
each of said one or more unique items is extracted
from a clause of a statement of at least one cached query
of said plurality of cached queries,
said plurality of cached queries are stored in a
cache,
each key field entry stores a unique item of said one
or more unique items,
said each key field entry is associated with a
corresponding data item field entry of said data item field
entries,
said corresponding data item field entry is
configured to store information identifj;ing said at least
one cached query that comprises said unique item stored
in said each key field entry, and
at least one of said one or more unique items
comprises a precomputed aggregate from a previously
cached query; and
a second set of instructions configured to determine a list
of candidate queries configured to be used to answer a new
query.
2
Appeal2015-000813
Application 11/931,947
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Carey et al. (US 2001/0049685 Al; Dec. 6,
2001) and Bakalash et al. (US 2002/0129032 Al; Sept. 12, 2002). Final
Act. 2.
Claims 2 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Carey, Bakalash, and Yarnall et al. (US
2001/0020237 Al; Sept. 6, 2001). Final Act. 7.
Claims 4--7 and 11-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Bakalash and Carey. 2 Final Act. 9.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Carey teaches or suggests "said
plurality of cached queries are stored in a cache," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Carey teaches or suggests "said
select list index stores one or more unique items," as recited in claim 1?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding Bakalash teaches or suggests
"at least one of said one or more unique items comprises a precomputed
aggregate from a previously cached query," as recited in claim 1?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding Carey teaches or suggests "each
of said one or more unique items is extracted from a clause of a statement of
2 In the Appeal Brief, Reply Brief, and two responses to office actions, claim
18 is listed as "a third set of instructions configured to ensure that all filters
of said are compatible with said selected aggregate" (emphasis added). The
italicized "said" should instead be "said at least one cached query that
comprises the at least one aggregate," based on an amendment on December
23, 2010. The Examiner addressed the full amended claim. Final Act. 15.
3
Appeal2015-000813
Application 11/931,947
at least one cached query of said plurality of cached queries," as recited in
claim 1?
5. Did the Examiner err in finding Carey teaches or suggests "said
corresponding data item field entry is configured to store information
identifying said at least one cached query that comprises said unique item
stored in said each key field entry," as recited in claim 1?
6. Did the Examiner err in finding Carey teaches or suggests "a
second set of instructions configured to determine a list of candidate queries
configured to be used to answer a new query," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Claimed Invention
As discussed above, the application generally relates to improving
performance in a database system by caching prior queries. Spec. i-fi-f l 04,
128. The claimed invention includes certain data structures for tracking
cached queries. One such data structure is the "select list index." When the
system receives a new query, it checks the select list index to identify cached
queries that may be used to answer the new query. Spec. i-f 158.
Claim 1 requires a select list index comprising two parts: (1) "key
field entries" and (2) "data item field entries."3 Claim 1 further requires that
"each key field entry is associated with a corresponding data item field
entry." In the example shown in Figure 3, a key field entry might be a
column name while the corresponding data field entry consists of pointers to
all the queries that use that particular column. Id. i-fi-f 166-168.
3 The Specification alternatively refers to these as "select list items" and
"pointers," respectively. Spec. i-f 167.
4
Appeal2015-000813
Application 11/931,947
Using the example from Figure 3, at most a single key field entry will
match a given column name, which means each key field entry is unique and
can be used as a key. Id. i-f 167. Thus, claim 1 refers to items in the key
field entry (e.g., a column name) as a "unique item," where "each key field
entry stores a unique item."
Claim 1 also requires that each data item field entry "is configured to
store information identifying" at least one cached query that includes the
unique item stored in the corresponding key field entry. For example, in
Figure 3, "since [the column name] 'employeeid' is included in the SELECT
clause of cached queries 1, 4, and 5, the data item for 'employeeid' includes
pointers to the results tables for queries 1, 4, and 5." Id. i-f 168.
When caching a new query, the system identifies all the unique items
in the new query (e.g., column names) and either revises the existing entry
for that unique item or adds a new entry if one did not previously exist. Id.
i-f 172. Thus, claim 1 requires "each of said one or more unique items is
extracted from a clause of a statement of at least one cached query."
Finally, Figure 3 is only "one specific data structure" and "[ o ]ther data
structures may also be used and this is within the scope of the invention,"
such as a table "with one entry for each query." Id. i-f 173.
"Cached Queries"
Like the present application, Carey relates to query optimization in a
database system, including "determining whether a query can be resolved
from the client cache." Carey i-fi-1 2, 13. Appellants argue "the main
distinction between Carey and the claimed invention" is that "Carey's cache
stores the results of a query- not the query itself." Reply Br. 13, 7.
5
Appeal2015-000813
Application 11/931,947
Appellants contend this error affects multiple claim limitations. Reply Br.
7-9, 12, 13; App. Br. 6-8. We, however, are not persuaded of error.
First, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification defines
"cached queries" as "the results of queries that have been saved in the
cache." Ans. 2, Spec. i-fi-f 105, 149. In light of this interpretation, the
Examiner correctly points to code in Carey that caches queries. Ans. 4
(citing Carey i-fi-f 104--106, 208-211).
Second, even if we were to construe "cached queries" as urged by
Appellants, we agree with the Examiner that Carey teaches or suggests
Appellants' narrow interpretation. Ans. 3. Carey discloses "maintaining a
semantic description of the client cache content" that is provided by a
"constraint." Carey i-f 13. "For example, if a query initially retrieves all
employees having a salary between 50,000 and 100,000, the constraint
describing the cache content for the employee table is sal>50000 and
sal50000 and sa1<100000." Id. A subsequent query for
"employees having a salary between 60,000 and 80,000" then checks the
existing constraints to determine if "that query result can be drawn from the
cache alone." Id. The constraints in Carey are based upon the techniques
used in Dar, which is incorporated by reference into Carey. Id. Dar teaches
more detail about the data structures used to store both the constraints and
the query results in the cache. E.g., Dar 336.
Each of Carey's constraints is "extracted from a clause of a statement
of at least one cached query" and thus discloses the claimed "unique item" in
claim 1. Dar's data structure storing a constraint discloses the claimed "key
field entry." Notably, Appellants' Specification expressly states that a data
structure "with one entry for each query" falls within the invention. Spec.
i-f 1 73. And just as in Figure 3 of the present application, the pointer
associating the key with the query results table constitutes the
"corresponding data item field entry ... configured to store information
10
Appeal2015-000813
Application 11/931,947
identifying said at least one cached query that comprises said unique item
stored in said each key field entry," as recited in claim 1. Finally, checking
the existing constraints to determine whether a new query can be derived
from the cache alone further teaches "a second set of instructions configured
to determine a list of candidate queries configured to be used to answer a
new query," as recited in claim 1. We adopt the Examiner's findings and
reasoning for the remaining limitations and the Examiner's rationale for
combining the references. Thus, we find the combination of Cary and
Bakalash teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 1 and 4.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection
of independent claims 1 and 4, and dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-22, which
stand with their respective independent claims.
However, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we
enter a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for claims 1 and 4.
Although we have rejected claims 1and4 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b),
we have not reviewed the remaining claims to the extent necessary to
determine whether these claims are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). We leave it to the Examiner to determine the
appropriateness of any further rejections based thereon.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-22. In a new ground of rejection, we reject claims 1 and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
11
Appeal2015-000813
Application 11/931,947
TIME TO RESPOND
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the
exammer ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record ....
REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
12