Ex Parte Morris et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 6, 2014

11716880 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN MARK MORRIS, ANITA RICHARDS, and
DOUGLAS P. BROWN
____________________

Appeal 2011-0135101
Application 11/716,880
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHNNY A.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–14. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is Teradata US, Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2011-013510
Application 11/716,880

2
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for managing workloads
associated with incoming queries (26) that are forwarded to appropriate
database management systems (DBMS) (12, 14) to retrieve requested data
therefrom. Spec. 5, ll. 11-13. In particular, a regulator (10) dynamically
monitors the temperature (frequency of access) of data in the DBMS (12,
14), and assigns the queries to workload groups, each having respective
service level goals (SLG) reflecting levels of service (e.g., response times)
expected by the DBMS in processing the queries to thereby determine a
priority for the workload groups. The regulator then utilizes the workload
priority and the frequency of access of the data to select the appropriate
DBMS to process the workload groups. Fig. 1, Spec. 5, ll. 15-19, spec. 10, l.
28– spec. 11, l..
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:

1. A system for managing database systems, comprising:

(a) one or more computers;

(b) one or more database systems executed by the one or more
computers, wherein each of the database systems performs database queries
to retrieve data stored by the database systems; and

(c) one or more regulators for managing the database systems
wherein:
Appeal 2011-013510
Application 11/716,880

3
(i) the regulators dynamically monitor a data temperature comprising a
frequency of access to the data stored by the database system;

(ii) the regulators separate incoming queries into one or more
workload groups;

(iii) each of the one or more workload groups is assigned to one or
more respective service level goals that are each comprised of one or more
levels of service expected from the one or more database systems in
processing the incoming queries assigned to the respective workload group;

(iv) the regulators dynamically determine a priority for each workload
group based on the respective service level goals; and

(v) the regulators dynamically utilize the priority in conjunction with
the data temperature to dynamically allocate resources for the database
systems for processing the one or more workload groups.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Elnaffar US 2004/0225631 A1 Nov. 11, 2004
Nagi US 2005/0086263 A1 Apr. 21, 2005
Hubbard US 2009/0138551 A1 May 28, 2009
(filed Feb. 27, 2001)

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ngai, Elnaffar, and Hubbard.

Appeal 2011-013510
Application 11/716,880

4
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5-15, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-5.2
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of Ngai, Elnaffar, and Hubbard teaches or suggests
assigning to each of a plurality of workload groups service level goals
expected from at least one DBMS to process incoming queries assigned to
the workload groups as recited in claim 1?
Appellants argue that the proposed combination of Ngai, Elnaffar,
and Hubbard does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized
above. Id. According to Appellants, while Hubbard discloses a plurality of
workload groups being processed by one or more databases in client
systems, Hubbard does not disclose that each of the workload groups is
assigned a service level goal. Rather, Hubbard’s disclosure focuses on the
Client’s processing capability, as opposed to the SLG of the workload
expected by the processing database. App. Br. 8, Reply Br. 2-3. Similarly,
Appellants argue Elnaffar’s disclosure of identifying and classifying the type
of a workload to thereby improve the performance of a DBMS does not
teach assigning an SLG to the workload. App. Br. 7, 10. Consequently,

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 22, 2011), the Reply Brief (filed
September 01, 2011) and the Answer (mailed July 01, 2011) for the
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-013510
Application 11/716,880

5
Appellants submit neither Hubbard nor Elnaffar cures the admitted
deficiencies of Ngai. App. Br. 11.
In response, the Examiner finds Elnaffar’s disclosure of classifying
workload groups based on their identified type in conjunction with
Hubbard’s disclosure of a workload benchmark teaches assigning to the
workload a service level group expected from the DBMS. Answer 10-11.
On the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1. In particular, we agree with Appellants that Elnaffar’s
disclosure of a workload type classifier module in a DBMS that identifies
and classifies the type of workload to fine-tune the DBMS does not teach
assigning to the workload a level of service that the DBMS will expect
during processing of the workload. That is, while the determination of the
workload identity will help the DMBS classify the workload to enhance
subsequent workload processing, such identification or classification of the
workload type does not necessarily inform the DBMS of the level of service
(e.g., response time) that it should expect from that particular workload.
Next, we agree with Appellants that because Hubbard’s disclosure of a
benchmark workload is a measure that determines the capability of a
client/DBMS as opposed to being a measure associated with the workload to
thereby inform the DBMS of the amount of work required to process the
workload, the benchmark workload does not teach the service level
associated with the workload group. Because Appellants have shown at
least one reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, we need not reach the
Appeal 2011-013510
Application 11/716,880

6
merit of Appellants’ remaining arguments. Appellants have therefore,
shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Because claims 2–14 recite at least the disputed limitations of claim 1
discussed above, Appellants have similarly shown error in the Examiner’s
rejection of those claims for the reasons set forth above.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–14 as set forth
above.

REVERSED

rwk