MICRO FOCUS LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 14, 2021

2020003914 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2021)

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