Goetz Graefe et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 20, 2020

12364170 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2020)

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.
12/364,170 02/02/2009 Goetz Graefe 82248626 3510
146568 7590 07/20/2020
MICRO FOCUS LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
EXAMINER
ALLEN, BRITTANY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2020 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):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GOETZ GRAEFE, HARUMI KUNO, and JANET L. WIENER
____________

Appeal 2019-000044
Application 12/364,170
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 16–35. Claims 1–15 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies EntIT Software LLC, as the real party
in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2019-000044
Application 12/364,170

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to using robustness maps of
measured database system performance acquired during database execution.
(Abstract.) Claim 19, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal:
19. A computer implemented method comprising:
receiving a robustness map, wherein the robustness map
represents a measure of continuity of a curvature of a particular
function, the particular function describing how the database
system performance of a first database query plan for a query
varies relative to a second database query plan for the query
based on variation of runtime conditions over a predetermined
range of runtime conditions;
testing the database system performance on a subset of
the predetermined range of runtime conditions based on a
location and a migration of a landmark on the robustness map,
wherein:
the landmark indicates a specific runtime condition
within the predetermined range of runtime conditions
under which the database performance experiences
degradation that exceeds a predetermined expected
database performance degradation at the specific runtime
condition; and
allocating resources to fix one or more robustness bugs
based on the results of the testing.

REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 16, 19–27, and 29–35 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ganesan et al. (US

2 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 16–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was
withdrawn. (Ans. 3.)
Appeal 2019-000044
Application 12/364,170

3
2004/0044662 A1, pub. Mar. 4, 2004) and Markl et al. (US 2008/0133454
A1, pub. June 5, 2008). (Final Act. 7–18.)
The Examiner rejected claims 17, 18, and 28 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ganesan, Markl, and Sink,
“My life as a Code Economist” (Nov. 11, 2005). (Final Act. 18–21.)

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue:3
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ganesan
and Markl taught or suggested the independent claim 19 limitation, “the
particular function describing how the database system performance of a
first database query plan for a query varies relative to a second database
query plan for the query,” and the commensurate limitations of independent
claims 16 and 27. (Appeal Br. 7–10.)

ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Ganesan Figures 10–16, and accompanying
description, as teaching or suggesting the independent claim requirement,
“the particular function describing how the database system performance of
a first database query plan for a query varies relative to a second database

3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 10, 2018); the Reply
Brief (filed Oct. 1, 2018); the Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 15, 2017);
and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Aug. 3, 2018) for the respective details.
Appeal 2019-000044
Application 12/364,170

4
query plan for the query.” (Final Act. 9–10; Ganesan Figs. 10–16, ¶¶ 202,
215, 226–233.) Appellant argues that the functions depicted in those figures
do not describe the performance variation of a first database query plan
relative to a second database query plan. (Appeal Br. 7–9.) As Appellant
points out, the figures in Ganesan depict separate lines representing absolute
values of individual functions — for example, a function representing an
“Optimized” query, and a function representing an “Unoptimized” query.
(Appeal Br. 9; Ganesan Fig. 10, ¶ 233.) We agree that nothing that the
Examiner points to in Ganesan suggests that these figures depict a function
describing performance of one plan relative to a second plan.
The Examiner notes that Appellant cites Figure 6D of the
specification as support for the claim requirement at issue. (Ans. 3–4.) The
Examiner then compares that figure with Ganesan Figure 10, noting that
both figures show multiple function lines:
Even though [Ganesan] Fig. 10 shows two function lines, there
is still “a particular function” and a second function shown.
Appellants Fig. 6D contains seven function lines, showing
further that “a particular function” can be shown with other
function lines. Therefore, Ganesan provides [the claim
requirement at issue].
(Ans. 6.)
However, as Appellant points out, the Examiner apparently
misunderstands Figure 6D of the specification — that figure depicts multiple
function lines, each of which shows performance of a subject plan relative
to the best plan for each point in the parameter space, unlike the individual
functions shown in Ganesan Figure 10. (Reply Br. 3; Spec. Fig. 6D, ¶ 52.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
independent claims 16, 19, and 27 as obvious over Ganesan and Markl. For
Appeal 2019-000044
Application 12/364,170

5
the same reason, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims
20–26 and 29–35 as obvious over Ganesan and Markl, or of claims 17, 18,
and 28 as obvious over Ganesan, Markl, and Sink, which claims depend
from claim 16, 19, or 27.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16, 19–27, 29–
35
103) Ganesan, Markl 16, 19–27,
29–35
17, 18, 28 103 Ganesan, Markl,
Sink
17, 18, 28
Overall
Outcome
16–35

REVERSED