MICRO FOCUS LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 14, 20212020003914 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/114,337 07/26/2016 Alkiviadis Simitsis 90238689 2308 146568 7590 09/14/2021 MICRO FOCUS LLC 500 Westover Drive #12603 Sanford, NC 27330 EXAMINER ZHAO, YU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/14/2021 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): software.ip.mail@microfocus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ALKIVIADIS SIMITSIS, WILLIAM K. WILKINSON, and JORGE AUGUSTO SALDIVAR GALLI ____________________ Appeal 2020-003914 Application 15/114,337 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, MICRO FOCUS LLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003914 Application 15/114,337 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to providing real-time monitoring and analysis of database query execution. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A system for providing real-time monitoring and analysis of query execution, the system comprising of: a processor to: obtain a query plan for a database query that is scheduled for execution in a database; generate a query tree based on the query plan, wherein the query tree comprises a plurality of operator nodes each of which is associated with a corresponding operator in the query plan; collect performance metrics from the database, wherein the performance metrics measure performance of the database query during execution of the database query on the database; display the query tree with the performance metrics, wherein a related portion of the performance metrics is displayed in each of the plurality of operator nodes; as the execution of the database query continues, collect updates to the performance metrics from the database; and in response to receiving the updates to the performance metrics, update the related portion displayed in each of the plurality of operator nodes based on the updates to the performance metrics. EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS 2 The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 26, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed April 30, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final Appeal 2020-003914 Application 15/114,337 3 as unpatentable over Brown (US 2009/0327242 A1; Dec. 31, 2009), Hu (US 2009/0077013 A1; Mar. 19, 2009), and Gopal (US 2010/0223253 A1; Sept. 2, 2010). Final Act. 4–19. The Examiner has rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brown, Hu, Kandil (US 2006/0218125 A1; Sept. 28, 2006), and Bunker (US 8,364,623 B1; Jan. 29, 2013). Final Act. 19–22. The Examiner has rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brown, Hu, and Elnikety (US 2014/0172914 A1; June 19, 2014). Final Act. 22–23. The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 6, 7, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brown, Hu, and Yan (US 2010/0312762 A1; Dec. 9, 2010). Final Act. 23–29. The Examiner has rejected claims 8, 10, 11, and 16 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brown, Hu, Gopal, and Ke (US 2013/0152057 A1; June 13, 2013). Final Act. 30–44. The Examiner has rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brown, Hu, Gopal, Ke, Kandil, and Bunker. Final Act. 45–47. The Examiner has rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brown, Hu, Gopal, Ke, and Yan. Final Act. 45–47. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s Office Action mailed July 3, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 9, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-003914 Application 15/114,337 4 arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 18. Appellant presents several arguments directed to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 13. Appeal Br. 8–14, Reply Br. 5–10. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Brown, Hu, and Gopal teaches displaying a query with performance metrics, where a portion of the performance metrics is displayed in each of the plurality of operator nodes as recited in independent claims 1 and 13. Appeal Br. 9–11, Reply Br. 5–8. Appellant argues that Hu, which the Examiner relies upon to teach this feature, teaches estimated performance measures displayed in the query tree and not actual performance measures. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner finds that Hu teaches the disputed limitation of a query tree with performance metrics displayed in the plurality of operator nodes. Final Act. 8 (citing Hu, Figs. 1, 2, ¶ 19). Further, in response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner states that the claim does not recite actual “performance metrics” as argued by Appellant. Ans. 3. The Examiner states: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “performance metrics” can be broadly interpreted as types of information such as “estimate performance metrics” or “actual performance metrics.” Therefore, the term “performance metrics” does not preclude “estimated performance metrics” from the claim language of “performance metrics.” Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Independent claim 1 recites “display the query tree with the performance metrics, wherein a related portion of the performance metrics is Appeal 2020-003914 Application 15/114,337 5 displayed in each of the plurality of operator nodes” and that the performance metrics are a measure of performance of the database query during execution of the databased query. Independent claim 13 recites similar limitations. Thus, while we concur with the Examiner that the claims do not recite displaying “actual performance,” the claims recites that the performance metric is a metric that is measured while the query is executing. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner that the claimed “performance metric” is broad enough to include estimated performance metric. We concur with the Examiner that Hu teaches a query tree where information concerning performance is included adjacent the nodes of the tree (see, e.g., Fig. 2, display screen 210, numbers between nodes 211–217). Hu, in paragraph 19, identifies the performance metric shown in the query tree is an estimated performance metric, not a metric measured during the execution of the database query. While Hu does mention presenting actual performance information, it is not in the query tree (see, e.g., Hu Fig. 2, display 220). Thus, the Examiner has not shown that the combination of the references teaches the limitations of independent claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, and 13 based upon Brown, Hu, and Gopal. Independent claim 8 recites limitations directed to collecting performance metrics during execution of a database query and “displaying the query tree with the performance metrics, wherein a related portion of the performance metrics is displayed in each of the plurality of operator nodes,” which are similar to the limitations of claims 1 and 13 discussed above. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 similarly relies upon the teachings of Hu discussed above to meet this limitation. Final Act. 32–33 (citing Hu, Figs. 1, Appeal 2020-003914 Application 15/114,337 6 2, ¶ 19). Similar to our discussion of claims 1 and 13, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Hu teaches these claimed features. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 13, the Examiner has not shown that the combination of the references teaches the limitations of independent claim 8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8, 10, 11, and 16 through 18 based upon Brown, Hu, Gopal, and Ke. With regard to the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3 through 7, 9, 12, 14, and 15, the Examiner has not shown that the teachings of the additional references make up for the deficiencies discussed above in the rejections of independent claims 1, 8, and 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 3 through 7, 9, 12, 14, and 15. Appeal 2020-003914 Application 15/114,337 7 CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 18. Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 13 103 Brown, Hu, Gopal 1, 2, 13 3 103 Brown, Hu, Kandil, Bunker 3 4 103 Brown, Hu, Elnikety 4 5, 6, 7, 14, 15 103 Brown, Hu, Yan 5, 6, 7, 14, 15 8, 10, 11, 16–18 103 Brown, Hu, Gopal, Ke 8, 10, 11, 16–18 9 103 Brown, Hu, Gopal, Ke, Kandil, Bunker 9 12 103 Brown, Hu, Gopal, Ke, Yan 12 Overall Outcome 1–18 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation