Ex Parte Chai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2012

11007499 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZHONG HUA CHAI and ANDREW E.S. ALCOCK

Appeal 2010-001735
Application 11/007,499
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 24-30. Claims 4,
6, 9, 10, 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, and 23 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2010-001735
Application 11/007,499

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
A method and system improves efficiency of highly
concurrent aggregate summaries updates by delaying the
updates to as late as possible in the transaction, while
maintaining an accurate in-progress aggregate summary for use
by transaction in progress.
Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative, with a key disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A method of updating concurrent aggregate
summaries, comprising:
in response to receiving, upon initiation of a first
transaction, a request to apply an update to data in a summary
table, applying the update to a delta table;
maintaining the data in the summary table for processing
by a second transaction at least in part concurrent with the first
transaction;
consolidating the summary and delta tables to create a
view for processing by the first transaction comprising view
data reflecting a future view of the data in the summary table
after the update has been applied to the summary table; and
prior to commit of the first transaction:
applying the update received upon initiation of the
first transaction to the data in the summary table using the delta
table; and
deleting the update from the delta table.
Appeal 2010-001735
Application 11/007,499

3
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Loaiza US 5,794,241 Aug. 11, 1998
Mumick et al. Maintenance of Data Cubes and Summary
Tables in a Warehouse (1997), pp. 100-111.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, and
25-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mumick. Ans. 3-6.1
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Mumick and Laoiza. Ans. 6-7.2

ISSUE
Appellants acquiesce to all claims standing or falling with claim 1.
App. Br. 10-11. Based upon our review of the record, the arguments
proffered by Appellants, and the findings of the Examiner, we address the
following issue with respect to claim 1:

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 15,
2009; the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 29, 2009; and, the Reply
Brief filed February 23, 2010.
2 Claims 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 27, and 28 are directed to a “computer program
product ... comprising: a computer-readable storage medium; and computer
program code encoded on the medium[.]” We leave it to the Examiner to
reevaluate these claims in view of MPEP § 2106, which was revised after
mailing of the Answer and provides new guidelines for assessing whether
such claim language satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2010-001735
Application 11/007,499

4
Has the Examiner erred in finding that Mumick teaches
the claimed step of “consolidating the summary and delta tables
to create a view for processing by the first transaction
comprising view data reflecting a future view of the data in the
summary table after the update has been applied to the
summary table”?

ANALYSIS
As reflected by the issue statement, the Examiner and Appellants
dispute whether Mumick teaches the claimed step of “consolidating the
summary and delta tables to create a view for processing by the first
transaction comprising view data reflecting a future view of the data in the
summary table after the update has been applied to the summary table[.]”
Citing Mumick’s propogate function, the Examiner finds that the
prepare-changes virtual view constitutes a delta table as claimed; and the
summary delta table constitutes a future view as claimed. Reply Br. 9-10.
Appellants argue that “[n]owhere does Mumick show a view showing
future data”. App. Br. 8.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Mumick’s prepare-changes virtual view is a table that represents
upcoming “changes to the [summary table’s] aggregate functions caused by
individual insertions and deletions … to the base data.” Mumick, p. 105, §
4.1.1; Table 1. Thus, the prepare-changes virtual view constitutes a delta
table, as claimed, because the prepare-changes virtual view is a table of
impending changes to the summary table. Mumick, Table 1.
Mumick’s summary-delta table is derived from the data of the
prepare-changes virtual view and has “the same schema as the summary
table, except that the attributes … represent changes to the corresponding
Appeal 2010-001735
Application 11/007,499

5
aggregate functions in the summary table.” Mumick, p. 105, § 4.1.2. Thus,
the summary delta table constitutes a future view of a summary table, as
claimed, because the summary delta table: (i) is a consolidation of the
summary table and prepare-changes virtual view by way of combining the
schema of the summary table and the data of the prepare-changes virtual
view; and (ii) represents upcoming changes to the aggregate functions of the
summary table. Note that, though Mumick’s summary delta table is not an
exact analogue of the summary table, Appellants’ Specification clarifies that
the claimed future view can be a “logical construct” of the summary table.
Spec. ¶ [0011].
Before turning to Appellants’ further arguments, we acknowledge that
the Answer’s “Grounds of Rejection” section fails to specify that the
claimed delta table and future view are respectively read on Mumick’s
prepare changes virtual view and summary delta table. However, the
Answer’s “Response to Arguments” section provides sufficient notice in
three respects.
First, using a bank account example, the section equates: the claimed
delta table to a pending withdrawal; the claimed future view to an available
balance; and the claimed summary table to a posted balance. A pending
withdrawal (claimed delta table) is analogous to the pending transactional
information of Mumick’s prepare changes virtual view. An available
balance (claimed future view) is analogous to the pending net change
information of Mumick’s summary delta table. And, a posted balance
(claimed summary table) is analogous to the committed net information of
Mumick’s summary table.
Appeal 2010-001735
Application 11/007,499

6
Second, the section equates the deferred changes of Mumick’s
propagate function to the claimed delta table. Ans. 9-10. Such deferred
changes are represented by Mumick’s prepare changes virtual view.
Third, the section equates Mumick’s “information of how the changes
would affect the summary table” to the claimed future view. Ans. 10. Such
information is represented by Mumick’s summary delta table.
Additional Arguments
In addition to the above argument,3 Appellants argue that Mumick
does not teach a “first transaction [that] accesses and processes the ‘future
view of the data’ (while the second transaction accesses and processes the
summary table).” App. Br. 9.
As to the first transaction, the Examiner responds that the Mumick
teaches the first transaction because the propagate function “accesses the
data in the summary table by updating the information through a delta
table.” Ans. 10. We agree. Claim 1 requires only that the request to update
the summary table is received “upon initiation of a first transaction” and that
the future view is part of a “view for processing by the first transaction.”
Mumick’s propagate function constitutes such a transaction by way of
generating the instructions for updating the summary table (request to

3 Appellants summarily state “claim 1 recites that both ‘applying the update
received upon initiation of the first transaction to the data in the summary
table’ and ‘deleting the update from the delta table’ occur ‘prior to commit
of the first transaction.’” App. Br. 9. Given the lack of explanation as to
how this limitation distinguishes over Mumick, we decline to address it. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.”).
Appeal 2010-001735
Application 11/007,499

7
update, as claimed) and creating the summary delta table (processing of the
future view, as claimed).
As to the second transaction, the Examiner responds that the “second
transaction is anything other than data which exists prior to the update in the
summary table.” Ans. 10. We agree. Claim 1 requires only that the data of
the summary table is maintained “for processing by a second transaction at
least in part concurrent with the first transaction.” Mumick’s summary table
can be accessed at any time prior to the actual updating of the summary
table, i.e., when not executing the refresh function. Mumick, p. 102, § 2.1.
Thus, during the propagate function (“concurrent with the first transaction,”
as claimed), the summary table is indeed maintained and available for other
transactions (“for processing by a second transaction,” as claimed).
Appellants also argue:
Mumick actually teaches away from updating the summary
table for each transaction: “Deferring the changes allows … a
consistent snapshot of the data throughout the day, and can
make the maintenance more efficient.” See Mumick, at p. 101,
col. 2, ¶ 3 (emphasis added).
App. Br. 9. The Examiner responds that Mumick’s “‘Refresh’ function
updates the tables when needed, which suggests that it could be performed
after each transaction.” Ans. 11.
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the claim scope.
Claim 1 does not require “updating the summary table for each transaction,”
as asserted by Appellants. Rather, claim 1 requires a request to update the
summary table “upon initiation of a first transaction” and a subsequent
application of the update to the summary table “prior to commit of the first
transaction.”
Appeal 2010-001735
Application 11/007,499

8
Nonetheless, we note our agreement with the Examiner. Mumick’s
refresh function is described as applying the net changes of the summary
delta table to a corresponding summary table. Mumick, p. 102, § 2.1. Given
this description, a skilled artisan would infer that the refresh function can be
implemented each time a summary delta table is completed. See In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering the disclosure of
a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”). Thus, reading the claimed first
transaction on Mumick’s creation of a summary delta table, i.e., on the
propagate function, Mumick provides for an updating of the summary table
per each first transaction.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not established a reversible error in the rejection of
claim 1. Accordingly, because claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 21, and
24-30 fall with claim 1, we sustain: the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2,
5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 25-30 over Mumick; and the obviousness
rejection of claims 3, 13, and 24 over Mumick and Laoiza.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11-13, 15, 17,
18, 21, and 24-30 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-001735
Application 11/007,499

9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tkl