Ex Parte Burger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 2016

12876373 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/876,373 09/07/2010 26890 7590 02/17/2016 JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA US, INC. 10000 INNOVATION DRIVE DAYTON, OH 45342 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Louis M. Burger 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. 20467 1200 EXAMINER LE, THU NGUYET T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2016 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 jam es.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 LOUIS M. BURGER, THOMAS P. JULIEN, and DOUGLAS P. BROWN Appeal2014-003840 Application 12/876,373 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1-3 and 6-12, all the pending claims in the present application. Claims 4 and 5 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to optimizing execution of database queries. See Abstract. Appeal2014-003840 Application 12/876,373 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer-implemented method for optimizing execution of database queries in a computer system, compnsmg: (a) generating, in the computer system, first and second query execution plans for first and second requests, wherein the first and second query execution plans are each comprised of one or more steps that scan a specified table in a database stored on the computer system in order to retrieve data from the table; and (b) executing, in the computer system, the first and second query execution plans, wherein intelligent query dispatching is performed on the steps of the first and second query execution plans to ensure that the steps share the data retrieved from the table and cached in memory; wherein the intelligent query dispatching coordinates execution of the steps of the first and second query execution plans so that the steps execute concurrently; and wherein the intelligent query dispatching delays the steps of the first or second query execution plans in order to coordinate the execution of the steps of the first and second query execution plans. Appellants appeal the following rejections: Claim 1-3 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Natkovich (US 2008/0147627 Al, June 19, 2008) and Wasserman (US 7,752,100 Bl, July 6, 2010). ANALYSIS Claims 1-3 and 6--12 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of Natkovick and Wasserman teach or suggest the intelligent query dispatching delays the steps of the first or second query execution plans in order to 2 Appeal2014-003840 Application 12/876,373 coordinate the execution of the steps of the first and second query execution plans, as set forth in claim 1? Appellants contend in Wasserman "[b]oth the first and second task begin when they were originally scheduled to begin ... "(App. Br. 7), as "only the point in the table where the second task begins its table read is changed" (id.; see also Reply Br. 2-3), whereas in the claimed invention "[t]he second query execution plan is delayed, beginning at a later point in time than it would otherwise begin" (Reply Br. 3). The Examiner finds that in Wasserman "[i]f the first task starts to scan the table earlier than the second task, the second task cannot start the step of scanning at the beginning of the table .... only when the first task completes the scanning. Thus, there is the delay in the step .... "(Ans. 7, citing Wasserman 10:8-15). We agree with the Examiner. Although Appellants contend that "[t]he second query execution plan is delayed, beginning at a later point in time than it would otherwise begin" (Reply Br. 3), we note that this contention is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not require the second query execution to begin at a later point in time. Rather, claim 1 merely recites, inter alia, "wherein the intelligent query dispatching delays the step" (see claim 1) without any limitation on how the steps are actually delayed. Appellants' Specification gives various exemplary embodiments on how the steps can be delayed, i.e., "the intelligent query dispatching may partially delay the steps of the first or second query execution plans, so that the steps of the first and second query execution plans overlap during execution" (17 :21-23). Appellants' Specification further states "so long as such delays do not negatively affect the response time for the first or second 3 Appeal2014-003840 Application 12/876,373 requests" (17:24--25). In other words, Appellants' Specification notes that any type of delays is acceptable so long as such delays do not negatively affect the response time. Consistent with Appellants' Specification, the Examiner finds that Wasserman discloses "[i]f one of the tasks starts the scan earlier than the other one, the second task starts reading wherever the first task happens to be" (Ans. 7; see also Wasserman 10:11-13). In other words, the first and second tasks overlap during execution, and the second task picks up whatever steps it missed later in the process. Thus, we find Wasserman's aforementioned teachings to exemplify a delayed step. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 11 and 12 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants do not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims (see App. Br. 6- 8). We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, and 6-12. DECISION We affirm the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-12. 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 4