Ex Parte Chandrasekar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2018

12403153 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/403, 153 03/12/2009 Sivasankaran Chandrasekar
42425 7590 07/30/2018
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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.
50277-3616 9114
EXAMINER
KUDDUS, DANIEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2018 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIVASANKARAN CHANDRASEKAR, ANH-TUAN TRAN,
andNIPUN AGARWAL
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-10, 13, and 15-18, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 11, 12, and 14 are cancelled. Final Act. 2.
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Oracle International Corporation as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Related Proceedings
Appellants state that there are no appeals or interferences related to
the present appeal. App. Br. 1. However, the present application was the
subject of related Appeal 2013-005653, decided August 10, 2015, rehearing
denied October 26, 2015, affirming the Examiner. 2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed invention relates to "database systems, and in
particular, to optimization of queries that access XML [ ( eXtensible Markup
Language 3)] data stored in a database." Spec. ,r 4. Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
maintaining a master table and a slave table as equi-
partitioned tables, wherein said master table is
partitioned into master table partitions based on
one or more columns of the master table, and
said slave table is partitioned into slave table
partitions based on said one or more columns of
said master table;
wherein each row of a plurality of rows in said slave
table corresponds to a respective master table
row in said master table;
wherein each slave table partition corresponds to a
respective master table partition of said master
table partitions;
wherein each row of said plurality of rows is stored in
a slave table partition that corresponds to the
2 Appellants and counsel are reminded of the obligation to identify related
proceedings pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(ii) (2016) and the duty of
candor under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a).
3 Microsoft Press, MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 489 ( 4th ed. 1999).
2
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
respective master table partition that stores the
respective master table row of said each row;
receiving a query that requires access to said master
table;
making a determination that said query requires access
to only certain one or more master table
partitions; and
in response to said determination, pruning partitions in
both said master table and said slave table;
wherein said pruning includes:
pruning partitions accessed by computation of said
query to said certain one or more master
table partitions, and
pruning slave table partitions accessed by
computation of said query to the one or
more slave table partitions that correspond
to said certain master table partitions;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices.
The Rejections
Claims 1-10, 13, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Cruanes et al. (US 7,020,661 B 1; issued Mar. 28,
2006) ("Cruanes") and Chowdhuri (US 2006/0080285 Al; published Apr.
13, 2006). See Final Act. 6-14.
Claims 1, 5, 10, and 15 stand cumulatively rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Cruanes and Krishnaprasad et al. (US
2007 /0239681 Al; published Oct. 11, 2007) ("Krishnaprasad"). See Final
Act. 14--20.
3
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
The Record
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed Feb. 14, 2017; "Reply Br." Filed Aug. 1, 2017) for Appellants'
positions; the Final and Advisory Office Actions ("Final Act." mailed July
15, 2016; "Adv. Act." mailed Nov. 17, 2016)), and the Examiner's Answer
("Ans." mailed June 1, 2017) for the Examiner's reasoning, findings, and
conclusions; the Specification ("Spec." filed Mar. 12, 2009); and the
Decisions in the prior related appeal ("'653 Dec'n"; "'653 Reh'g"). Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(1)(iv)(2016).
ISSUES
The issues presented by Appellants' arguments are as follows:
Issue 1: Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cruanes
and Chowdhuri teaches or suggests "equi-partitioned tables," as recited in
claim 1?
Issue 2: Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Cruanes and Chowdhuri teaches or suggests "said master table is
partitioned into master table partitions based on one or more columns of
the master table, and said slave table is partitioned into slave table
partitions based on said one or more columns of said master table," as
recited in claim 1?
Issue 3: Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Cruanes and Chowdhuri teaches or suggests
4
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
each row ... in said slave table corresponds to a respective
master table row ... ; ... each slave table partition
corresponds to a respective master table partition ... ; [and]
... each row [in said slave table]. . . is stored in a slave table
partition that corresponds to the respective master table
partition that stores the respective master table row of said
each row,
as recited in claim 1?
Issue 4: Does the Examiner err in concluding that a person having
ordinary skill in the art ("PHO SIT A") at the time of the invention would
have combined Cruanes and Chowdhuri in the manner articulated by the
Examiner?
ANALYSIS
THE COMBINATION OF CRUANES AND CHOWDHURI
Issue 1
The overall thrust of Appellants arguments is that the limitation of
"equi-partitioned tables" is only taught if it is found, in its entirety, in a
single reference. See generally App. Br. 8-14. At the heart of this argument
is the contention that Appellants have defined the term "equi-partitioning" in
such a way as to include, inter alia, basing the partitioning of the master and
slave table on one or more columns of the master table. See, e.g., App. Br. 9
("[N]owhere does the Examiner explain how Chowdhury's tables can
possibly meet the definition of the Appellants' equi-partitioned tables where
the 'master table is partitioned into master table partitions based on one or
more columns of the master table, and said slave table is partitioned into
slave table partitions based on said one or more columns of said master
table."' ( emphasis added)); id. at 12 ("Cruanes' table[] ... partitioning does
5
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
not meet the definition of the Appellants' 'equi-partitioned' master and slave
table so that the 'master table is partitioned into master table partitions based
on one or more columns of the master table, and said slave table is
partitioned into slave table partitions based on said one or more columns of
said master table."' ( emphasis added)).
We disagree. Even if we were to accept Appellants' proposed
definition of "equi-partitioned tables" (which, as discussed infra, we do not),
Appellants' arguments do not substantively address the combined teachings
of the prior art as cited by the Examiner. It is settled law that "the test [ for
obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCP A 1981) ( citations omitted). Therefore, "one cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references." Id. at 426; cf '653
Dec'n 8. The Examiner relies on Cruanes to teach
maintaining a master table and a slave table ... , wherein said
master table is partitioned into master table partitions based
on one or more columns of the master table, and said slave
table is partitioned into slave table partitions based on said
one or more columns of said master table,
as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 6 (citing Cruanes col. 5, 11. 29--50, col.
7, 11. 7-12, Figs. IA, IB); see also Final Act. 2-3; Adv. Act. 2. The
Examiner relies on Chowdhuri, when combined with Cruanes, to teach
partitioned master and slave tables that are "equi-partitioned tables." Final
Act. 7-8 (citing Chowdhuri ,r,r 39, 57, 115; Cruanes col. 8, 11. 3-35); see also
Final Act. 4; Adv. Act. 2; cf '653 Dec'n 7-8.
We also disagree with Appellants' arguments regarding the definition
of "equi-partitioned" in claim 1. Appellants point to the Specification at
6
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
paragraphs 28-36 and Figure 1, as well as the text of the claims themselves,
as defining the term "equi-partitioned." App. Br. 15-16. First, just because
the claims recite certain limitations with regard to "equi-partitioned" master
and slave tables does not mean that those limitations are ipso facto
incorporated into the definition of the term "equi-partitioning." Although
such limitations define the scope of the claim, if those limitations were
necessarily part of the definition of "equi-partitioned," their recitation in the
claim would be mere surplusage.
Reading claim 1 in light of Appellants' Specification, as we must, we
note that paragraph 23 of the Specification states that "[t]he operation of
dividing a table into partitions can be accomplished using various partition
keys, and can be based on various partition criteria." Further, "[a] partition
key is a key that is used to determine to which partition a particular record of
data belongs. The partition key can be defined in terms of one or more
attributes of the table." Spec. ,r 23. "The partitions produced by this process
are collectively referred to as a partitioned table. Each partition of the
partitioned table has the same columns as the table prior to partitioning."
Spec. ,r 23. Further, consistent with the Examiner's findings, the
Specification acknowledges that "[t]he most common form of partitioning is
a 'range' partitioning" (Spec. ,r 26), and "equi-partitioning may be
implemented using a partitioning function [that] defines the relationship
between partitions of the master table and the slave table," such as a range
value (Spec. ,r 33).
In addition, paragraphs 29-36 of the Specification are directed to
examples and embodiments of "equi-partitioning" of a master and slave
7
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
table. Turning to paragraph 28, Appellants define "equi-partitioning" as
follows:
Equi-partitioning involves at least a pair of partitioned
tables, where one table is referred to as a master table and another
table is a slave table. In equi-partitioning, each partition in the
master table has a corresponding partition in the slave table, and
vice versa. In addition, each row in the slave table has a
corresponding row in the master table, and vice versa. In equi-
partitioning, the master table partitions usually govern in which
partition of the slave tab le the data rows are stored. For purposes
of equi-partitioning, the rows in the Path table that index the
nodes of a particular XML document correspond to the rows in
the XML document table that store the XML document.
Spec. ,r 28. Although the reference to a "Path table" and "XML document"
in the last sentence of paragraph 28 describes a particular embodiment, we
conclude the remainder of the paragraph defines "equi-partitioning" as that
term is used in claim 1. 4
Therefore, consistent with Appellants' Specification ( and also
consistent with our findings and conclusions in the '653 Decision), we
conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of "equi-partitioned" tables
encompasses tables in which "[a] master table is partitioned into master
table partitions;" "[a] slave table is partitioned into slave table
partitions;" "each row ... in said slave table corresponds to a respective
4 We recognize that we used the word "define" to describe the relationship
between various limitations in claim 1 and the term "equi-partitioned" in the
Decision in Appeal 2013-005653. '653 Dec'n 4. It should be understood,
however that we used that term because those recited limitations were
consistent with the Appellants' lexicographical definition of "equi-
partitioning" at paragraph 28 of the Specification (cited at '653 Dec'n 4),
and not because of their syntactical position within the claim. To hold
otherwise would exalt form over substance.
8
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
master table row;" "each slave table partition corresponds to a respective
master table partition;" and "each row ... is stored in a slave table
partition that corresponds to the respective master table partition that
stores the respective master table row."
We note that Chowdhuri defines "equi-partitioned" as follows:
Equi-partitioned: Refers to two tables having compatible
partitioning keys and partitioning criteria. If two tables have the
same number of partition keys with compatible data types, and
the partition criteria such as the intervals are the same for the
range partitions, the two tables are considered equi-partitioned.
Chowdhuri ,r 3 9. We see no incompatibility between Chowdhuri' s use
of that term and the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term in
claim 1 in light of Appellants' Specification, particularly in view of the
Examiner's reliance on the combination of Chowdhuri with Cruanes. Cf
'653 Dec'n 8-9.
Therefore, although it is an affirmative limitation of the claim that
must be, and was, considered by the Examiner (see Final Act. 6; see also
Final Act. 2-3; Adv. Act. 2), the basis for partitioning the tables, i.e., "said
master table is partitioned into master table partitions based on one or
more columns of the master table, and said slave table is partitioned into
slave table partitions based on said one or more columns of said master
table," does not define the term "equi-partitioning."
Issue 2
Appellants further contend that
Cruanes' tables are partitioned using the same key ("time_id"),
but such a partitioning is not the same as the Appellants' "equi-
partitioning" of the master and slave table because there is no
table in Cruanes that is partitioned into slave table partitions
based on the one or more columns of the master table partitioned
9
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
into master table partitions based on one or more columns of the
master table."
App. Br. 13. We disagree.
We note initially that the operative claim limitation recites only that
the partitioning of both the master and slave tables is "based on one or more
columns of the master table" ( emphasis added) with no further details.
"Based on" is a very broad term and can cover any operation in which the
one or more columns of the master table is taken into account. The
Examiner maps the recited "master table" to Cruanes's fact table, e.g., Sales
Table 130a, 130b (Cruanes Fig. IB), and maps the recited "slave table" to
Cruanes's dimension table, e.g., Time Table 140 (id. Fig. IA). Adv. Act. 2.
Cruanes's Sales Table (the recited "master table") is partitioned using
time_id (Cruanes col. 7, 11. 6-16), as is Cruanes's Time Table (the recited
"slave table") (id. Fig. IA). Time_id is column 137 of Cruanes's Sales
Table 130a (the recited "master table"). Therefore, Cruanes teaches that the
partitioning of both the master table and the slave table is "based on," i.e.,
takes into account, at least one column of the master table. For emphasis,
we note the result would be the same if the Time Table were the master table
and the Sales Table were the slave table.
Appellants' contention "that the Appellants' slave table does not
include a copy of the first column of the master table" (Reply Br. 2
(referring to Spec. Fig. 1 ); see Spec. ,r 30) is unavailing. While the
Specification's example (see the heading for Spec. ,r,r 29-30) may be
encompassed by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the partitioning of
both the master and slave tables being "based on one or more columns of the
master table," it is just that-an example. Therefore, it is not limiting and
does not define the metes and bounds of the claim. As discussed supra, it is
10
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
not part of the definition of "equi-partitioning," and it is not recited in the
claim. We see nothing in the claim that precludes the slave table from
including the one or more columns that the partitioning was based upon, and
we decline to import this un-recited limitation into the claim. See In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("[L]imitations are not to be
read into the claims from the specification.").
Issue 3
Appellants contend as follows:
Since Chowdhuri and Cruanes fail to teach or suggest the equi-
partitioned master and slave table, wherein the "master table is
partitioned into master table partitions based on one or more
columns of the master table, and said slave table is partitioned
into slave table partitions based on said one or more columns of
said master table," Chowdhuri and Cruanes cannot possibly
teach or suggest that each row of a plurality of rows in such a
slave table corresponds to a respective master table row in said
master table[;] ... that each slave table partition in such a slave
table corresponds to a respective master table partition of said
master table partitions[; and] . . . that each row of the plurality
of rows is stored in a slave table partition that corresponds to the
respective master table partition that stores the respective master
table row of said each row.
App. Br. 17-18.
Appellants' argument, which re-states and relies on the arguments
made regarding Issues 1 and 2 supra, is unpersuasive of error for the
same reasons as stated for Issues 1 and 2.
Issue 4
The Examiner concludes as follows:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention for Cruanes to further include
Chowdhury' s parallel schedule generation in a query
optimizer into his planning and execution of a star query in a
11
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
database management system for an improved query
optimizer which has ability to predict resource usage and
adjust query plan, thus minimizes query response time by
judiciously interleaving and balancing the execution
primitives to take advantage of the available resources, with
the assumption that throughput remains unchanged.
Final Act 8 ( citing Chowdhury ,r 115).
Appellants contend as follows:
If [the] PHOSITA had combined the key partitioned tables and
the range partitioned tables of Cruanes and Chowdhury, then
[the] PHOSITA would have derived an approach for
combining the key partitioned tables with the range
partitioned tables. But such an approach has nothing to do
with the Appellants' equi-portioning in which the "master
table is partitioned into master table partitions based on one
or more columns of the master table, and said slave table is
partitioned into slave table partitions based on said one or
more columns of said master table [ ... ]."
App. Br. 19 (bracketed ellipsis in original).
Appellants' argument is unavailing for at least three reasons. First,
the arguments presumes that the PHO SIT A would merely directly insert
the teachings of Chowdhuri into the teachings of Cruanes without the
exercise of any judgment or creativity. However,
[t]o justify combining reference teachings in support of a
rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one
reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in
the other. The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
12
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). As the Supreme
Court instructs us, "the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398,418 (2007). "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
Secondly, Appellants argument is little more than conclusory
statements substantially reiterating the arguments we found unpersuasive
regarding Issues 1 and 2 discussed supra. Such attorney arguments,
unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. See In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what
seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not
the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness."); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Thirdly, Appellants do not actually attack the rationale articulated by
the Examiner. We note that
the problem motivating the patentee may be only one of many
addressed by the patent's subject matter. The question is not
whether the combination was obvious to the patentee but
whether the combination was obvious to a person with
ordinary skill in the art. Under the correct analysis, any need
or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
"' [T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."' KSR, 55
13
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The
Examiner has articulated a reason to combine the teachings of Cruanes
and Chowdhuri that is based on evidence drawn from the record and that
is reasonable and rational on its face. Appellants have not persuasively
demonstrated otherwise.
Summary
Appellants have not demonstrated Examiner error in the rejection
of claim 1 under§ 103(a) over Cruanes and Chowdhuri. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent
claims 5, 10, and 15, which are argued relying on the arguments made
for claim 1 (Ans. 19); and (3) claims 2--4, 6-9, 13, and 16-18, which
variously depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1, 5, 10, or 15 (id.), and
were not separately argued with particularity.
THE COMBINATION OF CRUANES AND KRISHNAPRASAD
Because we sustain the rejection under§ 103(a) of claims 1-10, 13,
and 15-18, i.e., all pending claims, over Cruanes and Chowdhuri, we need
not reach the merits of the rejection under§ 103(a) of claims 1, 5, 10, and
15, over Cruanes and Krishnaprasad, which is merely cumulative to the
Examiner's unpatentability decision based on Cruanes and Chowdhuri. See
In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that
obviousness rejections need not be reached upon affirming a rejection of all
claims as anticipated); Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed.
Cir. 1984) (approving ITC's determination based on a single dispositive
issue, and not reaching other issues not decided by the lower tribunal).
14
Appeal2017-010716
Application 12/403,153
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10, 13, and 15-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Cruanes and Chowdhuri is affirmed.
We do not reach the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 5, 10, and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cruanes and
Krishnaprasad.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(±), 4I.52(b) (2013).
AFFIRMED
15