TERADATA US, INC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 13, 2020

2019002711 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 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.
14/211,803 03/14/2014 Victor Lewis III 21447 9066
26890 7590 07/13/2020
JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA US, INC.
P.O. Box 190
Englewood, OH 45322
EXAMINER
WU, YICUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2020 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):
james.stover@teradata.com
michelle.boldman@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 VICTOR LEWIS III and BRET M GREGORY
____________________

Appeal 2019-002711
Application 14/211,803
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 12, and 14 through 20. 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). According to Appellant, Teradata US, Incorporated is the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002711
Application 14/211,803

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for compressing data, and more
particularly to, compressing column rows of data for transmission. Spec.
¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A system comprising:
a storage device configured to store a plurality of
data tables;
a processor in communication with the storage
device, the processor configured to:
receive a request to transmit a data table from the
plurality of data tables, wherein the data table has a
plurality of rows;
determine if contents of each column row of each
row of the data table are eligible to be compressed,
wherein both NULL and non-NULL values are eligible
for compression;
for each column row determined to contain eligible
contents:
generate compressed data representative of the
contents of a respective column row; and remove the
contents of the respective column row from an associated
row; and
generate a key indicative of a compression scheme
used to compress contents of column rows of the data
table, wherein the key is configured to indicate a
compressed NULL value in response to the determination
that the eligible contents contain a NULL value and to
indicate a compressed non-NULL value in response to
the determination that the eligible contents contain a non-
NULL value; and
transmit the compressed data, the key, and the data
table without content of the column rows represented by
the compressed data.
Appeal 2019-002711
Application 14/211,803

3
EXAMINER’S REJECTION2
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 5, 7 through 12, and 14
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US
2009/0112889 A1, Apr. 30, 2009) and Ivie (US 2006/0123035 A1, June 8,
2006). Final Act. 3–6.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in error as the
combination of the references do not teach generating a key as claimed.
Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant argues that Lee is directed to compression
involving null values only. Appeal Br. 6. Further, Appellant argues:
Moreover, the Examiner has failed to allege that the secondary
reference, Ivie, teaches or suggests the deficiencies of Lee. The
Examiner has made no effort in describing how a reference
disclosing only “compression” of null values can also be
interpreted to disclose that a “key is configured . . . to indicate a
compressed non-NULL value in response to the determination
that the eligible contents contain a non-NULL value.”

Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds Lee teaches the disputed limitation of a key as
Lee teaches an identification component that employs a bitmap that
distinguishes columns that are null from columns that are not null, and that
as the null columns are not transmitted space is saved and efficiency is
improved (null values are compressed). Final Act. 4 (citing Lee ¶¶ 6 and

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 13, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed February 19, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); Final
Office Action mailed November 16, 2017 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed December 18, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-002711
Application 14/211,803

4
40); Ans. 3–4 (citing Lee ¶¶ 39-40). The Examiner finds that Lee does not
teach non-null values are eligible for compression and cites Ivie as teaching
compression of non-null values. Final Act 4 (citing Ivie Fig. 5, ¶ 14). Based
upon these findings the Examiner concludes the references teach the
disputed limitation of generating a key indicative of a compression scheme
used to compress null values and compressed non-null value in response to a
determination that the eligible (to be compressed) contents contain a non-
null value. Final Act 4–5.
We are persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments. We concur with
the Examiner’s findings that Lee teaches an identification component which
identifies null values that can be compressed and that Ivie teaches a
compression scheme where non-null values are compressed. However, we
disagree with the Examiner that these findings alone support the conclusion
that these teachings make obvious the limitations in claims 1, 8, and 15—in
particular, the limitation directed to generating a key indicative of a
compression scheme used to compress null values and a compressed non-
null value in response to a determination that the eligible (to be compressed)
contents contain a non-null value. As argued by Appellant: “The Examiner
has made no effort in describing how a reference disclosing only
‘compression’ of null values can also be interpreted to disclose that a ‘key is
configured . . . to indicate a compressed non-NULL value in response to the
determination that the eligible contents contain a non-NULL value.’”
Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner has not cited, nor do we find that the cited
portions of Lee contemplates compressing non-null values. Further, Ivie’s
teaching of compressing the non-null alone does not explain how Lee makes
obvious the claim limitation. We note the claim does not recite compressing
Appeal 2019-002711
Application 14/211,803

5
all non-null values—only those determined to be eligible to be compressed.
Lee’s identification component (equated to the claimed key) only identifies
null and non-null values. The Examiner has not identified a teaching that
shows it would be obvious to include a third indication of compressed non-
null values. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, and 15 or claims 2 through 5, 7, 9 through 12, 14,
and 16 through 20.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–12,
14–20
103 Lee, Ivie 1–5, 7–12,
14–20

REVERSED