Ex Parte Sinclair et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 5, 2017

12979526 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 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.
12/979,526 12/28/2010 Paul Sinclair 20577 (2704.132US1) 3146
26890 7590
JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA US, INC.
10000 INNOVATION DRIVE
DAYTON, OH 45342
EXAMINER
CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2017 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):
michelle.boldman @ teradata. com
j ames. stover @ teradata.com
td.uspto@outlook.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL SINCLAIR and DONALD R. PEDERSON
Appeal 2017-004840
Application 12/979,526
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BETH Z. SHAW, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—7, 9—17, and 19—21, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-004840
Application 12/979,526
INVENTION
The disclosed invention provides “[techniques for processing
operations on column partitions of a table in a database.” Spec., abst.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with paragraphing (tabbed) and italics
added to emphasize an at-issue limitation.
1. A method for improving space utilization and file context
processing when processing deletes on a table of a database, the
method implemented and programmed within as executable
instructions within a non-transitory computer readable storage
medium and processed by a hardware processor, the processor
specifically configured to execute the method, comprising:
receiving, via the processor, a row identifier for a row to delete
within the table of the database by scanning column partitions
having particular conditions specified to find specific rows
qualifying for deletion;
ensuring, via the processor, that the row identifier is represented
within a control column partition associated with the table, the
control column partition is the first column partition and other
control values not associated with deletion are stored in one or
more separate column partitions different from the control
column partition, and
wherein the control column partition having delete bits
packed into a container for compression of the delete bits
within the control column partition and splitting the
control column partition into two separate control column
partitions when the delete bits exceed a predefined
threshold in size;
setting, via the processor, a bit flag for the row within the control
column partition to indicate that the row is deleted from the table;
and
dynamically managing the control column partition for deletion
processing thereby improving read access from the table and
2
Appeal 2017-004840
Application 12/979,526
space utilization of the table by ensuring that the table through
management of the control partition column does not include
rows that are identified for deletion in the control partition
column.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1—7, 9, and 10, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
as obvious over Lyle (US 6,366,902 Bl; April 2, 2002), Gupta
(US 7,111,020 Bl; Sept. 19, 2006), Zait (US 6,957,225 Bl; Oct. 18, 2005),
and Ganesh (US 2010/10278446 Al; Nov. 4, 2009). Final Act. 7-14
(April 19, 2016).
The Examiner rejects claims 11—17 and 19—21, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Bitar (US 6,405,198 Bl; June 11, 2002),
Gupta, Zait, and Ganesh. Final Act. 15—23.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1—7, 9, and 10
over Lyle, Gupta, Zait, and Ganesh
Claim 1 is representative for the rejection of claims 1—7, 9, and 10
over Lyle, Gupta, Zait, and Ganesh. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016)
(representative claims).
Appellants argue:
[T]he Final Office Action acknowledges that Lyle does not
specifically disclose the limitation of “splitting the control
column partition into two separate control column partitions
when the delete bits exceed a predefined threshold in size” and
cited Gupta ... as teaching this limitation.
. . . The cited text from Gupta provides a limited reference to
parti[ti]ons, columns, rows, and materialized views, inadequate
to teach or suggest the limitation!)]
3
Appeal 2017-004840
Application 12/979,526
. . . [T]he Examiner cannot show, at least the splitting of the
control column partition. All the reference locations of Gupta
that the Examiner cites as teaching the splitting of the control
column partition . . . merely discuss and teach managing a
partition.
Br. 8-9.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions because the
Examiner finds claim l’s at-issue limitation—“splitting the control column
partition into two separate control column partitions when the delete bits
exceed a predefined threshold in size”—is obvious over the combined
teachings of Gupta and Ganesh, not Gupta alone. Final Act. 7—14. One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner cites Gupta as teaching claim l’s “splitting the control
column partition into two separate control column partitions.” Final Act. 4
(“[N]ote: Gupta teaches PARTITION BY command and partition is a logical
division of data table(s), also involves splitting columns across table.”), 5, 9;
see also Ans. 6—7. The Examiner cites Ganesh as teaching claim l’s “delete
bits packed into a container for compression of the delete bits within the
control column [partition] . . . when the delete bits exceed a predefined
threshold in size”. Final Act. 11—12; Ans. 9—10.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Gupta and Ganesh teach a
system whereby partitions are logically provided (Gupta), delete bits are
placed in a column partition (Ganesh), and a column partition is split to
accommodate excess bits resulting from new bits (Ganesh). Gupta col. 7
11. 34—35 (“logical partitioning defined by the window clause ‘(PARTITION
4
Appeal 2017-004840
Application 12/979,526
BY . . . Ganesh, abst. (“[D]ata within the compression unit is stored in
row-major or column major-format[.]”); id. at 173 (“In response to
detecting that the size of the data in the overflow area has exceeded some
threshold, the data from the overflow may be repackaged into one or more
new compression units.”). In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of
technical reasoning to the contrary, the Examiner’s findings are reasonable
and we find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 1 and claims 2—7, 9, and 10 falling therewith.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 11—17 and 19—21
over Bitar, Gupta, Zait, and Ganesh
Claim 11 is representative for the rejection of claims 11—17 and 19—21
over Bitar, Gupta, Zait, and Ganesh. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(representative claims).
Appellants present the same or substantially the same arguments for
claim 11 as discussed above with respect to claim 1. For the same reasons
as discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 11, as well as claims 12—17 and 19—21.
DECISION
The Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—7, 9—17, and 19—21 is
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
5