Oracle International Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2022

2020005654 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2022)

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. 14/079,507 11/13/2013 Vikram Kapoor 50277-4492 7473 42425 7590 01/04/2022 HICKMAN BECKER BINGHAM LEDESMA/ORACLE 1 Almaden Boulevard Floor 12 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 EXAMINER GMAHL, NAVNEET K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2022 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): usdocket@h35g.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VIKRAM KAPOOR, AMIT GANESH, JESSE KAMP, SACHIN KULKARNI, VINEET MARWAH, KAM SHERGILL, ROGER MACNICOL, and MANOSIZ BHATTACHARYYA Appeal 2020-005654 Application 14/079,507 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-20 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act. 1-2; Appeal Br. 1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oracle International, Inc. See Appeal Br. 1. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Nov. 13, 2013 (claiming benefit of multiple applications including US 61/174,447, filed Appeal 2020-005654 Application 14/079,507 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally “relates to database storage and, more specifically, to storing database data as compression units within data blocks.” Spec. ¶ 3. More specifically, Appellant’s claims are directed to computer-readable media and methods for generating compression units that store a database table including separate table rows from the database table. Generating each compression unit includes the steps of compressing a first column of the separate table rows of each compression unit in a first subunit (of the compression unit) and compressing a second column of the separate table rows of each compression unit in a second subunit (of the compression unit). The method then stores the compression units in data blocks by storing each compression unit in a data block row chain that spans multiple data blocks, where the data block row chain contains the first column and the second column. See Spec. ¶¶ 5-26, 75-79, 171, 175, 176; Abstr. Claim 1 (directed to a method) and claim 11 (directed to computer-readable media) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: generating compression units in which to store a database table, each particular compression unit of said compression units storing respective separate table rows from said database table, wherein generating each particular compression unit comprises: Apr. 30, 2009 (see Spec. ¶¶ 1-2)); Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Aug. 19, 2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed July 29, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Jan. 10, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 29, 2020. Appeal 2020-005654 Application 14/079,507 3 compressing at least a first column of the respective separate table rows of said each particular compression unit in a column-major format in a first subunit of the compression unit; compressing at least a second column of the respective separate table rows of said each particular compression unit in a column-major format in a second subunit of the compression unit; storing the compression units in data blocks by, for each particular compression unit of said compression units, storing said particular compression unit in a data block row chain that spans multiple data blocks of said data blocks, wherein said data block row chain contains said first column and said second column; wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date French et al. (“French”) US 5,794,229 Aug. 11, 1998 Yates et al. (“Yates”) US 2008/0222136 A1 Sept. 11, 2008 REJECTION3 The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over French and Yates. See Final Act. 3-9. 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application has an effective filing date prior to the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2020-005654 Application 14/079,507 4 ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent claims 11, and dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20) as being obvious over French and Yates. See Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 3-7. The Examiner relies on French for teaching most of the features of Appellant’s claim 1, including generating compression units that store a database table by compressing columns of separate table rows of each compression unit in subunits of the compression unit and storing each compression unit in a data block row chain that spans multiple data blocks, where the data block row chain contains the columns. See Final Act. 3-4; Ans. 3-7 (citing French, col. 13, ll. 26-39; col. 14, ll. 33-50; Figs. 2, 3B, 3C, 5). The Examiner relies on Yates for teaching compressing columns of separate table rows of each compression unit in subunits of the compression unit-“French does not explicitly state some of the table rows being compressed as a part of the subunits instead it compresses all the rows in the column.” Final Act. 4. Yates, however, “teaches some of the table rows in the column being compressed as a part of the subunit.” Id. (citing Yates ¶¶ 63, 66; Figs. 4, 5A); see also Ans. 3-4. Appellant contends that French and Yates do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 2-5. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that “claim 1 requires at a minimum that a data block row chain contains at least two columns” (the first column and the second column referenced in claim 1), and further “requires that the first column and the second column be compressed . . . in column-major format.” Reply Br. 3; see Appeal Br. 5-10 and Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant further contends “French fails to teach a data block row chain that contains at least Appeal 2020-005654 Application 14/079,507 5 two columns” because “French teaches that each page chain only stores data members of one column.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted); see Appeal Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 2-5. We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error. French describes storing database data (database tables) by individual columns. In French, “data is not stored in a row or a horizontal orientation, as is traditionally done, but is instead stored vertically (i.e., by column).” French, col. 3, ll. 21-23. French stores each distinct column in a data page or multiple pages in a page chain. See French, col. 2, ll. 20-25; col. 3, ll. 25- 36; col. 14, ll. 35-39; Figs. 3B, 3C, 5. For example, according to French, a “table (view) 501[ that] includes four columns” “is stored as a plurality of vertical page chains 503,” and “compression is [applied] on a per page basis.” French, col. 14, ll. 36-40; see Fig. 5. In contrast, Appellant’s claim 1 requires that the database table be stored in data block row chains, such that each “data block row chain contains” multiple columns, i.e., “said first column and said second column.” Claim 1, Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). The Examiner-cited portions of French and Yates do not describe storing multiple database columns in a data block or data page chain. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of French and Yates renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claim 11 includes limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2-10, and 12-20 depend from and stand with their respective base claims. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-20. Appeal 2020-005654 Application 14/079,507 6 CONCLUSION Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 103(a) French, Yates 1-20 REVERSED