SISENSE LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2022

2020004267 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2022)

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. 15/234,732 08/11/2016 Omer PERI SSNE P0930 4164 122066 7590 01/31/2022 M&B IP Analysts, LLC 150 Morristown Road Suite 205 Bernardsville, NJ 07924-2626 EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2022 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com pair@mb-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte OMER PERI and ELDAD FARKASH ____________________ Appeal 2020-004267 Application 15/234,732 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JASON V. MORGAN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals2 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-16 (all of the pending claims). Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sisense LTD. Appeal Br. 3. 2 All references herein to the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) are to the Appeal Brief filed on February 10, 2020. Appeal 2020-004267 Application 15/234,732 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis and bracketed material added): 1. A computer-implemented method of enhancing database query execution, using at least one processor operatively connected to a memory, the method comprising: upon receiving a database query comprising at least a first join operation and a second join operation: [A.] storing the database query in the memory; [B.] identifying by the processor within the database query the first join operation, wherein the first join operation is a many-to-many join operation or a one- to-many join operation between a first table and a second table, wherein fields of the second table are used only for filtering rows from the first table or for joining with another table; and [C.] converting by the processor the first join operation to an enhanced operation which eliminates returning at least two matches for at least one row from the first table when the database query is executed, wherein the enhanced operation does not cause a join. REFERENCES3 The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Larson US 2007/0192283 A1 Aug. 16, 2007 Cheng US 2015/0278306 A1 Oct. 1, 2015 3 All citations herein to any pre-grant publication references are by reference to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-004267 Application 15/234,732 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cheng and Larson. Final Act. 4-10. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 2-16 further herein. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments. Appellant’s contentions we discuss are dispositive as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s other contentions are not discussed in detail herein. A. Examiner’s Final Action The Examiner determines: [I]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to modify the simulated semi join of the Cheng’s system to an actual semi join operation to eliminate joins when the database query is executed, as taught by Larson, in order to in order to reduce maintenance overhead thereby making expressions more effective to execute. Final Act. 3. B. Appellant’s Appeal Brief Appellant raises the following arguments in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicant disagrees with [Examiner’s] response to Applicant’s arguments . . . . Specifically, the [Examiner’s] statement that Cheng “is improved/enhanced by modifying the Appeal 2020-004267 Application 15/234,732 4 simulated semi join operation to an actual semi join operation after cost analysis” is not supported by Cheng. As the Final Office Action itself notes, Cheng uses a Bloom filter to improve query execution. Cheng does not teach using a SEMIJOIN operation to achieve cost savings outside of using a SEMIJOIN in a simulation to determine whether cost savings will be realized by applying the Bloom filter, and the Office Action does not provide a citation for use of an “actual” SEMIJOIN operation (i.e., a SEMIJOIN operation that is not merely being applied as part of a simulation). . . . At best, Cheng teaches that a SEMIJOIN operation is simulated in order to determine whether an execution plan will realize savings by utilizing a Bloom filter. Cheng does not even remotely suggest that the savings will be realized directly through use of a SEMIJOIN operation, let alone an “actual” SEMIJOIN operation as alleged by the Examiner. In contrast, Applicant cannot identify any portion in Cheng that even remotely suggests using a SEMIJOIN operation in any context other than as a simulation. Appeal Br. 10-11. C. Case Law As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”). “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We conclude the Examiner’s Appeal 2020-004267 Application 15/234,732 5 analysis fails to meet this standard because the rejection does not adequately explain the Examiner’s findings of fact. D. Panel’s Analysis As to Appellant’s arguments (Section B. supra) that the Examiner’s articulated reasoning is insufficient, we agree with Appellant that Cheng does not teach or suggest using a SEMIJOIN operation in any context other than as a simulation. We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s arguments, that there is currently insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding that Cheng and Larson, alone or in combination, teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention. CONCLUSION The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-16 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. Appeal 2020-004267 Application 15/234,732 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-16 103 Cheng, Larson 1-16 REVERSED