ENTIT SOFTWARE LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 23, 2020

15389919 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2020)

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.
15/389,919 12/23/2016 Debabrata Dash 90324147 3101
146568 7590 10/23/2020
MICRO FOCUS LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
EXAMINER
PENG, HUAWEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2020 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 DEBABRATA DASH, WENTING TANG,
MARYLOU ORAYANI, BRADLEY W. CLEVELAND, and
MASAKI UTSUMIYA
____________________

Appeal 2019-003496
Application 15/389,919
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL 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 20. 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) (2019). According to Appellant, EntIT Software LLC, a wholly-
owned affiliate of Micro Focus International Plc, is the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003496
Application 15/389,919
2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a data storage system which includes a
column store and a row store. The system will provide query results and a
query summary. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
receiving a query at a data storage system comprising
a query engine, a column store, and a row store;
in response to receiving the query, the query engine
generating query results and a query summary, wherein
generating the query summary comprises:
determining query summary fields comprised of a
subset of fields from a schema used to store data in the
row store;
determining whether all of the query summary
fields are stored in the column store;
in response to a determination that all of the query
summary fields are not stored in the column store,
searching only the row store instead of the column store
for a portion of the query results in the query summary
fields; and
generating the query summary from the portion of the
query results in the query summary fields.

EXAMINER’S REJECTION2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Huang (US 2010/0011031 A1; Jan. 14, 2010).
Final Act. 4–12.

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 18,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed April 1, 2019 (Reply Br.); Final
Office Action mailed May 24, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed February 1, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-003496
Application 15/389,919
3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 15. Appellant argues
that Huang does not anticipate independent claims 1, 10 and 15. Appeal Br.
7–9. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is: Did the
Examiner err in finding that Huang discloses in response to receiving a
query, generating a query and a query summary as recited in each of
independent claims 1, 10 and 15?
The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s arguments, states that when
interpreted in light of the Appellant’s Specification, the query summary
comprises a histogram for the query summary fields. Answer 4 (citing
Specification ¶ 47). The Examiner finds Huang teaches a query, a response
to a query, and a histogram that presents statistical information on fields. Id.
(citing Huang ¶¶ 56, 57, 150). The Examiner finds Huang’s histogram
teaches the claimed “query summary.” Id. (citing Huang ¶ 150).
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding. Each of the independent
claims recites a query results and a query summary, which are generated in
response to a query. We concur with the Examiner’s claim interpretation
that the query summary may be in the form of a histogram but the claims
nonetheless require it to be a histogram generated in response to receiving a
query. The claims also require generating the query summary from the
query results. We have reviewed the cited teachings in paragraph 150 of
Huang, and concur with Appellant that Huang’s histogram represents the
distribution of values previously stored in the database, is not a histogram
generated in response to a query from the query results and, therefore,
Appeal 2019-003496
Application 15/389,919
4
cannot be a summary of the query results. Reply Br. 2–3. Thus, the
Examiner has not demonstrated that Huang discloses the claimed query
summary generated in response to a query as recited in each of the
independent claims, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 1 through 20.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20.

Claims
Rejected
35 U. S. C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 102(b) Huang 1–20

REVERSED