Ex Parte Rabinovici et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 17, 2016

12971012 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/971,012 12/17/2010 26890 7590 03/21/2016 JAMES M, STOVER TERADATA US, INC. 10000 INNOVATION DRIVE DAYTON, OH 45342 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sorana Rabinovici 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. 20282 7149 EXAMINER BERTRAM, RYAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2137 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2016 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 SORANA RABINOVICI and SUZHEN LIN Appeal2014-006650 Application 12/971,012 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1---6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 The real party in interest is Teradata US, Inc. App. Br. 2. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed January 27, 2014 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed April 28, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed February 28, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed June 11, 2013 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed December 17, 2010 ("Spec."). Appeal2014-006650 Application 12/971,012 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention relates to improving disk read performance for database systems with large memory and disks. Spec. 1:9-10. According to Appellants, a contiguous read feature is employed to read multiple pseudo- contiguous data blocks (i.e., data blocks that are not contiguous) with a single read I/O from disk storage into cache memory. Spec. 1 :23-25, 5: 18- 27; Abstract. Claims 1, 3, and 5 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' invention, as reproduced below: 1. A computer-implemented method for optimizing disk read performance for database systems, the method comprising the steps of: providing to a computer a list of data blocks to be read from a disk storage device; creating, by said computer, a Segment Descriptor Block (SDB) for each data block to be read from said disk storage device; creating, by' said computer, a SDB list comprising said SDBs sorted in their associated data blocks disk address order; determining, by said computer, the distance between adjacent data blocks in the SDB list; comparing, by said computer, the distance between data blocks in the SDB list with a predetermined maximum; combining, by said computer, adjacent data blocks in the SDB list with a distance between the adjacent data blocks less than said predetermined maximum into a pseudo-contiguous read chain; and reading, by said computer, from said disk storage device data within an area containing said pseudo-contiguous read chain in a single read operation. App. Br. 10 (Claims App'x.) (disputed limitations in italics). 2 Appeal2014-006650 Application 12/971,012 Examiner's Rejection Claims 1---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy (U.S. Patent 6,931,501) and Jeffries (U.S. Patent 5,974,544). Final Act. 2-7. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Narayanaswamy teaches a method for optimizing disk read performance for a database system including, inter alia: "combining, by said computer, adjacent data blocks ... into a pseudo-contiguous read chain" in context of command data blocks (CDB) in a queue, and "reading ... from said disk storage device data within an area containing said pseudo-contiguous read chain in a single read operation." Final Act. 3 (citing N arayanaswamy 5: 15- 24, 5:44--54, 5:66-7:5). In other words, Narayanaswamy teaches combining multiple contiguous like commands corresponding to contiguous files into a single command. See Narayanaswamy 2:20-51; 4:37--44. The Examiner acknowledges Narayanaswamy does not teach sorting the SDBs in a list and determining if the [non-contiguous] read commands are close enough in proximity to be combined as a single read command, but relies on Jeffries for teaching these missing features in order to support the conclusion of obviousness, i.e., to increase transfer speeds. Id. at 3--4; Ans. 8 (citing Jeffries 70:52---67). Appellants acknowledge the cited portion of Jeffries discusses sorting of a queue of requests and combing those requests involving close proximity. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. However, Appellants argue neither 3 Appeal2014-006650 Application 12/971,012 Narayanaswamy nor the cited portion of Jeffries teaches or suggests the specific steps of: "creating, by said computer, a SDB list comprising said SDBs sorted in their associated data blocks disk address order; determining, by said computer, the distance between adjacent data blocks in the SDB list; [and] comparing, by said computer, the distance between data blocks in the SDB list with a predetermined maximum" as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 3 and 5. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-5. According to Appellants, there is no teaching or suggestion from either Narayanaswamy or Jeffries regarding Segment Descriptor Blocks (SBDs) or a SDB list comprising SDBs sorted. Reply Br. 3-5. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided a complete response to Appellants' arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 7-8. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we note that claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The term "Segment Descriptor Block (SBD)" is not defined by Appellants' Specification, but is generally described as each data block. Spec. 6:8-27. The Examiner has interpreted the term "Segment Descriptor Block (SBD)" as encompassing "a command data block (CDB)" as described by Narayanaswamy. Ans. 8 (citing Narayanaswamy 5:44--54). In the absence of an explicit definition from Appellants' Specification, we find the Examiner's interpretation to be reasonable and consistent with Appellants' Specification and Narayanaswamy. 4 Appeal2014-006650 Application 12/971,012 Moreover, we note that obviousness "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, 406 (2007). A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 ( CCP A 197 6). The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91(CCPA1978). Narayanaswamy already teaches combining multiple contiguous like commands corresponding to contiguous files (data blocks that are contiguous) into a single command. See Narayanaswamy 2:20-51; 4:37--44. As further modifications for non-contiguous like commands corresponding to non-contiguous files (data blocks that are not contiguous), Jeffries suggests that these multiple non-contiguous requests or commands that are in close proximity can also be combined as a single request. Ans. 8 (citing Jeffries 70:52---67). A skilled artisan is presumed to have the technical competence and experience working in memory access systems and of the manner in which problem was solved, including sufficient skill to create a list comprising data blocks (CDBs or SDBs) sorted and determine the close proximity of these non-contiguous like commands based on an inherent distance comparison in order to combine these commands as a single read operation in the manner recited in Appellants' claims 1, 3, and 5. 5 Appeal2014-006650 Application 12/971,012 For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 3, and 5 and their respective dependent claims 2, 5, and 6, which Appellants do not argue separately. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1---6. 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 6