Ex Parte Arnold et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2013

11189395 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013)

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.
11/189,395 07/26/2005 Jeremy Alan Arnold IBM / 212DV1 3965
26517 7590 06/28/2013
WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM)
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
LIN, SHEW FEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JEREMY ALAN ARNOLD, ERIC LAWRENCE
BARSNESS, RICHARD DEAN DETTINGER, and JOHN
MATTHEW SANTOSUOSSO
____________________

Appeal 2010-011895
Application 11/189,395
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: MARC S. HOFF, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011895
Application 11/189,395

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3, 4, 6-10, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

The claims are directed to optimization of database network traffic
based upon data-use analysis. Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below, are
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of prefetching data from a server in a client-server
database management system, the method comprising:
(a) using at least one hardware processor, tracking usage
of data requested by a database query by a client application
resident on a client to generate at least one usage statistic;
(b) receiving a record request from a client application
resident on a client, wherein the record request requests at least
one record that is not cached in a prefetch cache resident in the
client;
(c) in response to the record request, using the usage
statistic to formulate a data set to be retrieved from the server
and into the prefetch cache; and
(d) retrieving the data set from the server and into the
prefetch cache;
wherein the database query comprises an SQL statement,
wherein the client-server database management system
comprises a relational database, wherein the record request
comprises a position row request for a table in the relational
database, wherein tracking usage of data comprises determining
a number of rows used by a client application during a prior
execution of the database query, and wherein retrieving the data
set includes retrieving less than a full block of rows into the
prefetch cache.

6. A method of prefetching data from a server in a client-server
database management system, the method comprising:
Appeal 2010-011895
Application 11/189,395

3
using at least one hardware processor, tracking usage of
data requested by a database query by a client application
resident on a client to generate at least one usage statistic;
receiving a record request from a client application
resident on a client, wherein the record request requests at least
one record that is not cached in a prefetch cache resident in the
client;
in response to the record request, using the usage statistic
to formulate a data set to be retrieved from the server and into
the prefetch cache; and
retrieving the data set from the server and into the
prefetch cache;
wherein the database query comprises an SQL statement,
wherein the client-server database management system
comprises a relational database, wherein the record request
comprises a position row request for a table in the relational
database, wherein tracking usage of data is performed in
connection with a first execution of the database query, and
wherein using the usage statistic to formulate a data set to be
retrieved from the server and into the prefetch cache, and
retrieving the data set from the server and into the prefetch
cache, are performed in connection with a second execution of
the database query.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Netz US 6,438,537 Aug. 20, 2002
Martin
Mogul
US 2002/0091712 A1
US 2003/0126232 A1
Jul. 11, 2002
Jul. 3, 2003
Bernstein et al., “Context-Based Prefetch for Implementing Objects
on Relations”, Proceedings of the 25th VLDB Conference
Edinburgh, Scotland (1999) (hereinafter Bernstein)
Appeal 2010-011895
Application 11/189,395

4

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bernstein and Mogul. Ans. 4.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bernstein, Mogul, and Netz. Ans. 10.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bernstein, Mogul, and Martin. Ans. 11.

ISSUES
Whether Bernstein discloses the disputed claim limitations of:
(1) Tracking usage information including determining a number of
rows used by a client application (claim 1) 1;
(2) Tracking usage of data in connection with a first execution of a
database query, and using the usage statistic to formulate a data set
and retrieving data based upon the formulated data set in
connection with a second execution of that database query (claim
6); and
(3) Storing usage statistics that are associated with the actual usage of
data requested by a client in a statement pool (claim 9).

1 We note that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues; however, we
do not reach these issues, as this issue is dispositive of the appeal of claim 1.
Appeal 2010-011895
Application 11/189,395

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with Appellants’ conclusions as to claims 1, 3, 4, and 10.
However, we disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions in connection with
claims 6-9 and 21 and, in connection therewith, adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief and we
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.

Claims 1, 3, 4, and 10
Appellants contend that “[t]here is no disclosure or suggestion in
[Bernstein] . . . that any tracking is performed as to how many rows from
particular blocks are used.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner
responds that Bernstein discloses “use knowledge of recent application
behavior (usage statistics) to identify combinations of rows worth
prefetching, and prefetching is based on the set that result from the execution
of a query. The Examiner has interpreted the phrase “result from the
execution of a query” as ‘number of rows used by a prior query.’” Ans. 16
(emphasis omitted). We disagree with the Examiner that Bernstein discloses
the disputed claim limitation. While the cited portion of Bernstein discloses
how many rows to prefetch, we find no disclosure that tracking usage data
comprises determining a number of rows used by a client application during
a prior execution of the database query, nor has the Examiner provided
Appeal 2010-011895
Application 11/189,395

6
sufficient evidence or explanation why the cited references would teach or
suggest as much. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bernstein and
Mogul or, for the same reason, the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 4.
Neither do we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Bernstein, Mogul, and Martin, the addition of Martin failing to
cure the deficiency in the base rejection addressed supra.

Claim 6
Appellants contend that “neither Bernstein, nor Mogul, discloses or
suggests tracking usage of data in connection with a first execution of a
database query, and using the usage statistic to formulate a data set and
retrieving data based upon the formulated data set in connection with a
second execution of that database query.” App. Br. 13. In particular
Appellants argue that, while Bernstein discloses first and second requests or
queries, “[t]hese requests, however, are directed to different data, so these
two requests, even if analogized to queries, would not represent separate
executions of the same query, but rather separate queries altogether.” Id.
Therefore, according to Appellants, “Bernstein does not disclose or suggest
formulating a data set and requesting that data set during one execution of a
query, and based upon usage data determined during a prior execution of
that same query.” Id. The Examiner responds that “there is no definition or
specification in the claims that ‘a first’ and ‘a second’ are two different
instances of the same query.” Ans. 21. The Examiner further finds that
Appellants’ Specification supports an interpretation wherein the first and
second executions of the database query process different returned blocks of
Appeal 2010-011895
Application 11/189,395

7
data. Ans. 20, 21 citing Spec. [0048]. We agree with the Examiner. In
particular, we find that claim 6 as broadly interpreted2 does not require that
the first and second executions of the database query be separate executions
of the same query but can be separate queries. Therefore, Appellants’
arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 6. Because we further
agree with the Examiner that Bernstein teaches the disputed limitations
(Ans. 21 citing Bernstein p. 336, para. 3), Appellants’ contention is not
persuasive of Examiner error. Therefore, in the absence or sufficient
evidence or argument to persuade us of reversible error in connection with
the rejection, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 and of dependent claims 7,
8 and 21 not separately argued.

Claim 9
Appellants argue that “Netz does not disclose or suggest storing usage
statistics that are associated with the actual usage of data requested by a
client in a statement pool, as required by claim 9.” App. Br. 15. The
Examiner responds that Netz teaches the disputed limitation (see Ans. 22-23
citing Netz Fig. 2, 225, col. 2, lines 47-55, col. 6, lines 27-50, col. 11, lines
16-41, col. 10, lines 12-22), the Examiner interpreting Netz’s “query
statistics log” as the “statement pool” of claim 9 (Ans. 23). We agree with
the Examiner that Netz’s teaching of collecting and maintaining data on
queries including a frequency count of the number of times the query has
been issued and saving that information in query statistics log 225 of a
relational database discloses the disputed limitation of storing usage

2 “[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
Appeal 2010-011895
Application 11/189,395

8
statistics that are associated with the actual usage of data requested by a
client in a statement pool. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence or
argument of Examiner error, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Bernstein, Mogul, and Netz teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of claim 9 and sustain the rejection of that claim.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claim 1 and therefore we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 3
and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bernstein and Mogul or the rejection of
claim 10 over Bernstein, Mogul, and Martin. However, we sustain the
rejections of claims 6-8 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bernstein and
Mogul and claim 9 over Bernstein, Mogul, and Netz.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4 and 10 is
reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6-9 and 21 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc