Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2018

13650201 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/650,201 10/12/2012 26890 7590 09/27/2018 JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA US, INC. 10000 INNOVATION DRIVE DAYTON, OH 45342 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Douglas P. Brown 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 20272 COl 1085 EXAMINER PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2123 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2018 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): michelle. boldman @teradata.com j ames.stover@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 DOUGLAS P. BROWN, ANITA RICHARDS, JAMES PETER COLBY JR., and JEFFREY S. SHEL TON Appeal 2018-003796 Application No. 13/650,201 1 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC. S. HOFF, and JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appellants' invention is a system, method, and computer-readable storage medium containing instructions for emulating an environment of a target database system. A test system receives environment information of a 1 The real party in interest is Teradata US, Incorporated. 2 Appellants "respectfully request[] that claims 14--18 be removed from this appeal," but have not filed any amendment to the claims in compliance with 37 CPRÂ§ 41.33. Reply Br. 2. Claims 14--18 remain pending in this appeal. Appeal2018-003796 Application No. 13/650,201 target database system. The environment information includes, inter alia, information relating to hardware and software components of the target database system, and settings of a scheduler in the target database system. The test system emulates an environment of the target database system using the received environment information, and database software is executed in the emulated environment in the test system. See Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: receiving, in a test system having one or more processors, environment information of a target database system, wherein the environment information includes information relating to hardware and software components of the target database system, definitions of workloads in the target database system, and settings of a scheduler in the target database system; emulating, in the test system, an environment of the target database system using the received environment information; executing database software in the emulated environment in the test system; using the definitions of the workloads of the target system to perform workload management in the emulated environment in the test system; and using the settings of the scheduler of the target system to perform scheduling of tasks of database management software in the emulated environment in the test system. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Brown "Brown '408") Brown "Brown '346") US 2003/0093408 Al US 2007/0174346 Al 2 May 15, 2003 (hereinafter, July 26, 2007 (hereinafter, Appeal2018-003796 Application No. 13/650,201 Claims 1-7 and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown '408 and Brown '346. Final Act. 4. Claim 14--18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Ans. 5. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed July 12, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb. 15, 2018), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 15, 2017) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Brown '408 and Brown '346 disclose or suggest using the settings of the scheduler of the target system to perform scheduling of tasks of database management software in the emulated environment in the test system? ANALYSIS SECTION 103 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-7, 10-13, 19, AND 20 Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, "using the settings of the scheduler of the target system to perform scheduling of tasks of database management software in the emulated environment in the test system." Independent claim 19 recites "[a] test system" comprising a network interface that receives "settings of a scheduler in the target database system." The Examiner finds that Brown '408 discloses performing "scheduling of tasks of database management software in the emulated environment in the test system." Ans. 2-3; Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Brown '346 discloses "using the settings of the scheduler" in the target 3 Appeal2018-003796 Application No. 13/650,201 database system, and proposes the combination of the two references to render the invention obvious. Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner cites Brown '408 as specifically disclosing the use of scheduling administrator 174 to allow DDL statements to be executed at a later time, and that said scheduling of the DDL statements to be executed at said later time "clearly happens within the emulated environment in the test system." Ans. 3; Brown '408 ,r 135. We do not agree with the Examiner's finding concerning the scheduling administrator 174 of Brown '408. Brown '408 discloses an index wizard client module that issues a command to perform validation of the indexes in a test database system 10 which is used to test database software before release. Brown '408 ,r,r 32, 130. This index validation results in recommended indexes which a user can choose to apply. Id. at ,r,r 130, 135. During index analysis, DDL statements are generated as part of the index analysis to apply the recommendations. Id. at ,r 135. A user is able to apply the index recommendations using scheduling administrator tool 174. Id. The DDL statements (previously generated) are then communicated to the target database system 14 for execution. Id. ( emphasis added). Brown '408 thus discloses that the scheduling administrator tool is used to communicate the DDL statements to the target database system 14, rather than the test system 10. Therefore, we find that the Examiner erred in finding that Brown '408 discloses performing scheduling of tasks of database management software in the emulated environment in the test system, as claim 1 requires. We have reviewed the Examiner's findings concerning Brown '346, and we find that Brown '346 does not remedy the deficiency of Brown '408 4 Appeal2018-003796 Application No. 13/650,201 regarding the scheduling of tasks of database management software in the emulated environment in the test system. We find that the combination of Brown '408 and Brown '346 fails to disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 19, or of claims 2-7, 10-13, and 20 dependent therefrom. We do not sustain the Examiner's Â§ 103(a) rejection. SECTION 103 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 14--18 Independent claim 14 recites, in pertinent part, a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that upon execution cause a target database system to "extract environment information of the target database system, [including] one or more of: definitions of workloads in the target database system, and settings of a scheduler in the target database system." Appellants' arguments with respect to the prior art rejection, while mentioning "similar limitations" in claim 14, are directed exclusively to the "scheduler" limitations present in each of claims 1 and 19. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants make no argument traversing the Examiner's finding concerning the "definitions of workloads" portion of the alternative limitation. The Examiner has thus made an unrebutted finding that Brown '408 discloses the claimed "definitions of workloads," one of the alternatives in the alternative limitation expressed in claim 14. On this record, then, we sustain proforma the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 14, and claims 15-18 dependent therefrom, over Brown '408 and Brown '346. 5 Appeal2018-003796 Application No. 13/650,201 SECTION 101 REJECTION In response to the new ground of rejection entered in the Examiner's Answer, Appellants state that they "will not be appealing the rejection of claims 14--18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 and respectfully requests that claims 14--18 be removed from this appeal." Reply Br. 2. As Appellants have not filed an amendment under 37 CPRÂ§ 41.33 cancelling claims 14--18, we are constrained on this record to sustain pro f orma the Examiner's Â§ 101 rejection of claims 14--18. CONCLUSION The combination of Brown '408 and Brown '346 does not disclose or suggest using the settings of the scheduler of the target system to perform scheduling of tasks of database management software in the emulated environment in the test system. ORDER The Examiner's decision to reject claims 14--18 is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7, 10-13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6