Zoomdata, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 27, 2020

15382522 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
15/382,522 12/16/2016 Justin LANGSETH 022103-0450656 2110
909 7590 02/27/2020
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
DAVANLOU, SOHEILA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2020 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):
docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUSTIN LANGSETH, RUHOLLAH FARCHTCHI,
QUAN CAT LUU, MATTHEW ROBERT BARRETT, and
PUNIT RATHORE
Appeal 2018-006238
Application 15/382,522
Technology Center 2100

Before JOHN A. EVANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY,
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Zoomdata, Inc. Appeal
Brief 2, filed January 22, 2018 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2018-006238
Application 15/382,522

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “facilitating queries via request-
prediction-based temporary storage of query results.” Specification ¶ 2, filed
December 16, 2016 (Spec.). Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of facilitating queries via request-prediction-
based temporary storage of query results, the method being
implemented by a computer system that comprises one or more
processors executing computer program instructions that, when
executed, perform the method, the method comprising:
predicting that a request will occur in the future, the
predicted request comprising a predicted inquiry for a set of
values;
performing multiple queries for data related to calculating
the set of values,
wherein the multiple queries are performed in
response to the request being predicted, and
wherein the related data comprises a first subset of
the related data and other subsets of the related data;
obtaining the first subset of the related data based on at
least some of the performed multiple queries;
causing the performance of the multiple queries to stop
prior to obtaining the other subsets of the related data;
predicting the set of values based on the first subset of the
related data without the other subsets of the related data;
causing the predicted set of values to be stored in a
temporary data storage;
obtaining a subsequent request, matching the predicted
request, from a client device subsequent to the storage of the
predicted set of values;
obtaining the predicted set of values from the temporary
data storage based on the subsequent request from the client
device; and
Appeal 2018-006238
Application 15/382,522

3
providing the predicted set of values for presentation at the
client device.
Appeal Br. 16.
REJECTIONS
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 18,
21, 22 102 Chang
2
4, 5, 14, 15 103 Chang, Narasayya3
3, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17 103 Chang, Roundtree4
9, 19 103 Chang, Narasayya, Roundtree
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites “[a] method of facilitating queries via request-
prediction-based temporary storage of query results” that includes
“performing multiple queries for data related to calculating the set of
values,” “the related data compris[ing] a first subset of the related data and
other subsets of the related data.” Appeal Br. 16. The method also includes
“obtaining the first subset of the related data based on at least some of the
performed multiple queries” and “causing the performance of the multiple
queries to stop prior to obtaining the other subsets of the related data.”
Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that Chang
discloses the “causing the performance of the multiple queries to stop prior
to obtaining the other subsets of the related data” limitation recited in claim
1. See Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Brief 5, filed May 23, 2018 (Reply Br.).
Appellant contends that even if the parts of Chang relied on by the Examiner

2 Chang et al. (US 2013/0304798 A1; Nov. 14, 2013).
3 Narasayya et al. (US 2007/0288495 A1; Dec. 13, 2007).
4 Roundtree et al. (US 2014/0359471 A1; Dec. 4, 2014).
Appeal 2018-006238
Application 15/382,522

4
teach stopping the performance of queries, the parts of Chang cited by the
Examiner do not disclose stopping the performance of queries prior to
obtaining the other subsets of related data as required by claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 5.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner found that Chang discloses
the disputed limitation because Chang teaches (1) confirming that a
maximum number of concurrent data requests are not being performed
before receiving a data request and sending it to a server and (2) returning an
error message after retrying a data request a predetermined number of times.
See Final Action 4, mailed August 21, 2017 (quoting Chang ¶ 50);
Examiner’s Answer 6–7, mailed April 11, 2018 (quoting Chang ¶¶ 40, 50–
51). Although the cited parts of Chang may teach stopping a data request in
particular circumstances, as argued by Appellant, the cited parts of Chang do
not disclose stopping a data request “prior to obtaining the other subsets of
the related data” as required by the disputed limitation. We therefore agree
with Appellant that the Examiner erred.
On this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claim 1 and claims 2 and 8, which depend from claim 1. Because the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 11 and 21 suffers
from the same deficiency, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of these claims and claims 12, 18, and 22, which depend from
either claim 11 or claim 21. Finally, because the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 3–7, 9, 13–17, and 19 do not remedy the deficiencies in
the rejections of their respective independent claims, we also do not sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 3–7, 9, 13–17, and 19.
Appeal 2018-006238
Application 15/382,522

5
CONCLUSION
The following table summarizes our decision for claims 1–9, 11–19,
21, and 22, the claims before us on appeal:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8, 11,
12, 18, 21,
22
102 Chang
1, 2, 8, 11,
12, 18, 21,
22
4, 5, 14, 15 103 Chang, Narasayya 4, 5, 14, 15
3, 6, 7, 13,
16, 17 103 Chang, Roundtree
3, 6, 7, 13,
16, 17
9, 19 103 Chang, Narasayya, Roundtree 9, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11–
19, 21, 22

REVERSED