Ex Parte Schreter

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13215726 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/215,726 08/23/2011 I van Schreter
52025 7590 09/01/2016
SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST A VENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
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.
2011P00083US 2749
EXAMINER
AL HASHEM!, SANA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
martin@BMTPATENT.COM
szpara@bmtpatent.com
colabella@bmtpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IV AN SCHRETER
Appeal2015-002840
Application 13/215, 726
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant 1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-14, and 16-19. 2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is SAP AG. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 3, 9, and 15 have been cancelled. Id.
Appeal2015-002840
Application 13/215,726
Invention
The claims are directed to changing a columnar table using a delta
structure that is stored in volatile memory and copied to persisted memory.
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for a database system compnsmg a first
instantiation of a columnar table in a volatile memory and a
second instantiation of the columnar table in a persisted memory,
the method comprising:
receiving a transaction to change the columnar table;
recording the transaction within a delta structure in the
volatile memory;
recording the transaction within a log of the persisted
memor;;
receiving an instruction to merge the delta structure in the
volatile memory with the first instantiation of the columnar table
in the volatile memory;
in response to the instruction, merging the delta structure
in the volatile memory with the first instantiation of the columnar
table in the volatile memory to create a merged columnar table
in the volatile memory, and not storing the merged columnar
table in the persisted memory;
receiving an instruction to execute a savepoint; and
in response to the instruction to execute the savepoint,
copying the delta structure in the volatile memory to the persisted
memory, and copying the merged columnar table in the volatile
memory to the persisted memory.
2
Appeal2015-002840
Application 13/215,726
Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Renkes US 2012/0221528 Al Aug. 30, 2012
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-14, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as being anticipated by Renkes. Final Act. 2-7.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Renkes discloses
"receiving an instruction to execute a savepoint; and in response to the
instruction to execute the savepoint, copying the delta structure in the
volatile memory to the persisted memory, and copying the merged columnar
table in the volatile memory to the persisted memory," as recited in
independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 7, 13, and
19. App. Br. 7--44; Reply Br. 2-21. Specifically, Appellant argues Renkes'
snapshot does not copy Renkes' delta structure, e.g., write-optimized
structure, from volatile memory to persisted memory. App. Br. 17.
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner finds
Renkes discloses a delta structure, e.g., a write-optimized structure, which is
merged with a columnar table, e.g., a read-optimized structure. Ans. 2-3
(citing Renkes i-fi-126, 27, 29); Final Act. 3 (citing Renkes i132). The
Examiner also finds Renkes discloses delta structures stored in both volatile
memory and in persisted memory. Ans. 2-3 (citing Renkes i1 7).
3
Appeal2015-002840
Application 13/215,726
The portions of Renkes cited by the Examiner, however, do not
disclose that the delta structure stored in volatile memory is "cop[ied] ... to
the persisted memory," as required by the claims. Renkes merges a delta
structure into a columnar table, i.e., "data from the write-optimized structure
is merged into the read-optimized store" and stores the columnar table in
persisted storage, i.e., "the read-optimized structure may be written to
persisted storage 460," but Renkes does not disclose that the write-optimized
structure, i.e., the delta structure, is copied into persisted storage. Renkes
i-f 32. Further, Renkes' respective mergers of volatile memory delta
structures and persisted memory delta structures do not include steps of
copying the delta structures in volatile memory to persisted memory.
Renkes i-f 7. Nor does the mere existence of delta structures in volatile
memory and delta structures in persisted memory disclose that the delta
structure in volatile memory is copied to persisted memory. Renkes i-fi-1 7,
26, 27, 29.
Accordingly, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner's§ 102 rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 and
claims 2, 4--6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 16-18 which depend directly or indirectly
from claims 1, 7, 13, or 19.
4
Appeal2015-002840
Application 13/215,726
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
1, 2, 4--8, 10-14, and 16-19.
REVERSED
5