Kazmaier, Gerrit Simon. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

13962725 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
13/962,725 08/08/2013 Gerrit Simon Kazmaier 34874-985F01US 5889
64280 7590 09/02/2020
Mintz Levin/SAP
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LOAN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroombos@mintz.com
mintzdocketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERRIT SIMON KAZMAIER, TOBIAS MINDNICH,
CHRISTOPH WEYERHAEUSER, and DANIEL BAEUMGES
Appeal 2019-003184
Application 13/962,725
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–21 are pending in this application. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–
21.1 Ans. 3. We have jurisdiction 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAP
SE. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003184
Application 13/962,725

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a managing and querying spatial point data
in column stores using space-filling curves. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a database comprising a columnar data store
storing data in a column-oriented structure, a query on a spatial
data set occupying a multi-dimensional space;
mapping, by at least one data processor, the spatial data set
to physical storage in the database, the spatial data set having a
plurality of coordinate values that are encoded using a
corresponding plurality of value identifiers, the mapping using a
space-filling curve having a minimal order such that the space-
filling curve traverses every cell in a grid divided into a minimum
quantity of cells, the minimal order of the space-filling curve
being determined based at least on a quantity of the plurality of
value identifiers used to encode the plurality of coordinate
values, the mapping of the spatial data set using the space-filling
curve having the minimal order transforming the spatial data set
from the multi-dimensional space to a one-dimensional space
along the space-filling curve, and the spatial data set being
mapped using the space-filling curve having the minimal order
such that no two points in the spatial data set are mapped to a
same distance on the space-filling curve;
compacting, by the at least one data processor, the spatial
data set based at least on the mapping of the spatial data set using
the space-filling curve having the minimal order; and
executing, by the at least one data processor, the query by
at least retrieving, from the database, at least a portion of the
compacted spatial data set responsive to the query.
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-003184
Application 13/962,725

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Wong US 2003/0194116 A1 Oct. 16, 2003
Geiselhart US 2004/0225638 A1 Nov. 11, 2004
Lawder US 7,167,856 B2 Jan. 23, 2007
Bowman US 2012/0166446 A1 June 28, 2012

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–9, 11–18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bowman, Lawder, and
Geiselhart. Final Act. 8–15.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bowman, Lawder, Geiselhart, in further view of
Wong. Final Act 16.
The Examiner initially rejected claims 1–21 as being directed to a
judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter (Final Act 5–7), but
subsequently withdrew this rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 3.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Geiselhart teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation of “the mapping . . . using a space-filling curve having a
minimal order . . . such that no two points in the spatial data set are mapped
to a same distance on the space-filling curve,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings
of Bowman, Lawder, and Geiselhart. Relevant here, the Examiner finds that
Appeal 2019-003184
Application 13/962,725

4
Bowman and Lawder do not teach the disputed limitation, relying instead on
teachings of Geiselhart. Final Act. 10–11 (citing Geiselhart ¶¶ 48, 49, 54,
66, Figs. 6, 7, and 9).
Appellant argues:
The Examiner’s insistence that Geiselhart discloses the claimed
minimal order space-filling curve appears to be rooted in a
profound misunderstanding between reducing the dimensionality
of a spatial data set from a multi-dimensional space to a one-
dimensional space and minimizing the order of a space-filling
curve used to map the spatial data set from the multi-dimensional
space to the one-dimensional space. Instead of minimizing the
order of the space-filling curve used to map a spatial data set,
Geiselhart merely describes the effect of applying a space-filling
curve in reducing the dimensionality of a spatial dataset.
Appeal Br. 14. Appellant further contends that “nowhere does Geiselhart
disclose or suggest selecting a minimal order space-filling curve as the
transformation function.” Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Although not entirely
clear, the Examiner appears to equate Geiselhart’s description of a
“minimum cluster distance” with the recited “space-filling curve having a
minimal order.” See Ans. 3–4. However, the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained how the selection of a minimum cluster distance teaches or
otherwise suggests selecting a “minimal order space-filling curve,” as the
transformation function. The burden falls on the Examiner to show how
Geiselhart’s selection of a minimum cluster distance renders obvious the
recited “using a minimal order space-filling curve.” On the record before us,
the Examiner has not provided sufficient explanation or reasoning to carry
this burden. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2019-003184
Application 13/962,725

5
Remaining Claims
Independent claims 11 and 20 also recite limitations commensurate in
scope with the disputed limitation discussed above. For the same reasons,
we also do not sustain the rejection of these claims. The remaining claims
each depend from one of independent claims 1, 11, and 20 and stand with
their respective base claims.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11–18,
20, 21
103 Bowman, Lawder,
Geiselhart
1–9, 11–18,
20, 21
10, 19 103 Bowman, Lawder,
Geiselhart, Wong
10, 19
Overall
Result
1–21

REVERSED