NICA, Anisoara et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 28, 2020

14189433 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
14/189,433 02/25/2014 Anisoara NICA 1933.2890001 5430
82515 7590 04/28/2020
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
EXAMINER
LE, MIRANDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2020 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):
e-office@sternekessler.com
jasong@sternekessler.com
mlee@sternekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANISOARA NICA and ANIL K. GOEL
____________________

Appeal 2019-002110
Application 14/189,433
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–4, 7–13, 16, 18, 20, and 22–26. Appeal Br. 9 and 12.
Appellant has cancelled claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 21. Final Act. 15–
19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant identifies SAP SE as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002110
Application 14/189,433

2
Claimed Subject Matter2
Claims 1, 4, and 23 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter
(emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A method comprising:
[A.] determining that a first set of data statistic objects have been
generated based on data maintained by a plurality of
components of a database, wherein the database statistic
objects are maintained during subsequent data updates;
[B.] receiving one or more statistical questions requiring an
estimate for generating a query execution plan associated
with processing a respective statement relevant to a
database, wherein the one or more statistical questions are
posed by the database process prior to executing the
respective statement;
[C.] providing the answer to the one or more statistical questions
in real-time based on one or more of the first set of data
statistic objects, wherein the answer is an approximation
computed without evaluating the respective statements, and
wherein a usage for each of one or more data statistic objects
of the first set is maintained relative to whether or not each
respect data statistic object was relevant to the statements;
[D.] determining, by the processor, that the usage for a particular
one of the data statistic objects of the first set falls below a
threshold usage level;
[E.] removing the particular data statistic object with usage that
is below the threshold usage level from the first set of data
statistic objects, wherein the removed particular data
statistic object is no longer maintained by one or more of the
plurality of components after it is removed; and

2 Appellant’s July 12, 2017 Amendment deleted the gathering steps from
claims 1, 11, and 20. This deletion introduced problems by removing the
antecedent basis for “the processor” in these claims and removing the
antecedent basis for “gathering” in claims 4, 13, 22, and 23. Correction is
necessary.
Appeal 2019-002110
Application 14/189,433

3
[F.] querying data maintained by the plurality of components of
the database relevant to the one or more data statistic objects
remaining in the first set, wherein during a processing of a
subsequent statistical question only the remaining one or
more data statistic objects of the first set are used to provide
an answer to the subsequent statistical question, wherein
data corresponding to the removed particular data statistic
object is not maintained by the one or more of the plurality
of components during the processing of the subsequent
statistical question.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
[G.] building a data statistics object from the gathered data
statistics, wherein the data statistics object is associated with
performance of a component of the plurality of components
in the database system.
23. The method of claim 1, wherein the subsequent gathering
comprises querying a plurality of components within a database
management system and building the second set of data
statistics based on the queried data.

REFERENCES3
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Ellis US 6,366,901 B1 Apr. 2, 2002
Li US 7,890,496 B2 Feb. 15, 2011
Gaur US 9,251,181 B2 Feb. 2, 2016

3 All citations herein are by reference to the first named inventor/author
only.
Appeal 2019-002110
Application 14/189,433

4
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 7–13, 16, 18, 20, and 22–26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gaur
and Ellis. Final Act. 3–10. We select claim 1 as the representative claim
for this rejection. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are
determinative as to this rejection.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over combination of Gaur, Ellis, and Li. Final Act. 10. The
contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are also determinative as to this
rejection.
Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address claims
2–4, 7–13, 16, 18, 20, and 22–26 further herein.
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s contentions we discuss
are determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s
other contentions are not discussed in detail herein.
A.
The Examiner determines:
As to claim[] 1, . . . Gaur teaches a method comprising:
. . .
removing the particular data statistic object
with usage that is below the threshold usage level
from the first set of data statistic objects, wherein
the removed particular data statistic object is no
longer maintained by one or more of the plurality of
components after it is removed
Appeal 2019-002110
Application 14/189,433

5
(i.e. A determination may be made if a frequency of use of
particular data objects corresponding to certain tables, columns
and rows exceeds a predetermined threshold. If the frequency of
use exceeds the predetermined threshold, the corresponding data
may be loaded in the grid for more efficient access, [Gaur] col.
7, line 64 to col. 8, line 8)[.]
Final Act. 3–5.
B.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
The language of claim l is directed to removing a data
statistic object when usage of the object falls below a usage
threshold. However, Guar is directed to loading data into
memory based on usage exceeding a threshold (Guar, 7:53–56),
which is contradictory to the claim language.
For example, Gaur describes that “database usage
statistics 210 may be analyzed to determine the most frequently
used, requested, or accessed data object or entities in a database
for loading in the grid . . . If the frequency of use exceeds the
predetermined threshold, the corresponding data may be loaded
in the grid for more efficient access.” (Guar, 7:64–8:8 . . .).
First, loading data into memory based on data statistics
that indicate the data usage exceeds a threshold does not teach or
suggest removing a data statistic object based on the usage falling
below a threshold.
Appeal Br. 9–10 (emphasis omitted).
C.
The Examiner responds by determining that as to Gaur’s step 208 and
210, described at column 7, line 64 to column 8, line 8:
Gaur teaches “removing” as to not loading (i.e. dropping) data
objects having the frequency below (or less frequent) the
predetermined threshold, thereby loading only the most
Appeal 2019-002110
Application 14/189,433

6
frequently used, requested or accessed data objects or entities,
instead of loading all the data.
. . .
One skilled in the art would understand that removing (or
rather, dropping) the particular data statistic object that is below
the threshold usage level limitation here equates to particular
data objects are not loaded (i.e. dropped) base[d] on the less
frequency of access to data in certain tables, columns and rows[.]
Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted).
D.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
Guar does not teach or suggest what the Examiner alleges it does;
the portion of Guar cited to by the Examiner . . . does not support
the Examiner’s allegation.
Reply Br. 3.
E.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”).
“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . .
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We conclude the Examiner’s
analysis fails to meet this standard because the rejection does not adequately
explain the Examiner’s findings of fact.
Appeal 2019-002110
Application 14/189,433

7
Particularly, we agree with Appellant that the language of claim 1
requires “removing the particular data statistic object with usage that is
below the threshold usage level from the first set of data statistic objects,”
and we disagree with the Examiner’s reasoning that Gaur alone without
more is sufficient to show the argued claim limitation. We conclude,
consistent with Appellant’s arguments that there is insufficient articulated
reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding that Gaur discloses the argued
claim limitation.
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning
to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention.
CONCLUSION
The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–4, 7–13, 16, 18, 20, and 22–26 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 7–13, 16, 18, 20, and 22–26
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
Appeal 2019-002110
Application 14/189,433

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 7–
13, 16, 18,
20, 22–26
103 Gaur, Ellis 1, 2, 4, 7–
13, 16, 18,
20, 22–26
3 103 Gaur, Ellis, Li 3
Overall
Outcome

1–4, 7–13,
16, 18, 20,
22–26

REVERSED