Ex Parte Lewis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 2017

13605227 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2017)

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. 13/605,227 09/06/2012 Cameron Lewis 21169 5916 26890 7590 12/18/2017 TA1UFS M STOVFR EXAMINER TERADATA US, INC. KERZHNER, ALEKSANDR 10000 INNOVATION DRIVE DAYTON, OH 45342 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2165 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2017 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 CAMERON LEWIS, ELIZABETH BREALEY, and MICHAEL REED Appeal 2017-008253 Application 13/605,227 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JOHN EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-008253 Application 13/605,227 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1 and 4-18. Claims 2, 3, 19, and 20 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7-11) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3-6) that the Examiner’s rejections (see Final Act. 3-12) of (i) independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bhalotia (US 2008/0183737 Al; published July 31, 2008) and Raman (Vijayshankar Raman & Garret Swart, How to Wring a Table Dry: Entropy Compression of Relations and Querying of Compressed Relations, VLDB ’06 858-869 (Sept. 2006) (hereinafter “Raman”) (Final Act. 3^4); (ii) dependent claims 4-7 as being unpatentable over the base combination of Bhalotia and Raman taken with various other tertiary references (Final Act. 4-7); (iii) independent claim 8 and dependent claims 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20 as being unpatentable over Bhalotia alone (Final Act. 7-9); and (iv) dependent claims 11-15, 17, and 18 as being unpatentable over Bhalotia taken with various other secondary references (Final Act. 9- 12), are in error. We have also reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-3). We agree with Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3 4) that page 858 of Raman, whether in the “Correlation” paragraph or elsewhere, fails to describe or suggest “determining whether the timing data includes at least one time component with a time value to be represented using a determined subset of a full set of possible time values required to fully represent the time value in the full form, wherein the subset of the full set of possible time values represents a subset of time values determined to occur 2 Appeal 2017-008253 Application 13/605,227 more frequently for the timing data than one or more other time values in the full set that are not in the subset,” as recited in independent claim 1. Raman describes encoding timing data (e.g., an order receipt date) in fewer bits based on a presumption that the receipt date is most likely to be within a one week period of the order date (p. 858, “Correlation” paragraph). However, Raman is silent as to determining whether the timestamp data includes a time component with a time value as recited in claim 1 (e.g., determining whether or not the order receipt date is within a week of the order ship date). Appellants rely on the arguments presented as to independent claim 1 for the patentability of claims 4-7 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4). Based on the record before us, we are constrained to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, as well as claims 4-7 depending therefrom. We also agree with Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 6) that Bhalotia, and particularly Figure 2 and/or paragraph 19 (Ans. 3), fails to teach or suggest a step for determining first and second timing information of the timing data as recited in independent claim 8 (i.e., Raman fails to disclose “determining whether to store at least one of: (i) the first time information of the timing data and (ii) the second timing information of the timing data,” as recited in independent claim 8). Bhalotia’s Figure 2 shows and paragraph 19, describing the method shown in Figure 2, discusses a method of encoding timestamps including computing and storing timestamp data (Fig. 2, steps 202 and 204; 19). However, Bhalotia is silent as to determining whether to store at least one of first time information and second timing information with a reduced number of bits, as recited in independent claim 8. Nor does the Examiner explain sufficiently how the above cited passage, which teaches storing timestamp data, further suggests 3 Appeal 2017-008253 Application 13/605,227 determining whether to store the recited information. See Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 3. Appellants rely on the arguments presented for independent claim 8 for the patentability of remaining dependent claims 9-18 (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6). Based on the record before us, we are constrained to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 8, as well as claims 9-18 depending therefrom. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 1 and 8, as well as corresponding dependent claims 4- 7 and 9-18 depending respectively therefrom. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as well as claims 4-7 and 9-18 depending respectively therefrom. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 4- 18. REVERSED 4