Ex Parte Bhattacharjee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2009

10425781 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BISHWARANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, LESLIE A.
CRANSTON, MATTHEW A. HURAS, BRUCE G. LINDSAY,
TIMOTHY R. MALKEMUS, CATHERINE S. MACARTHUR,
SRIRAM K. PADMANABHAN, and MICHAEL J. WINER
____________________

Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided:1 June 30, 2009
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, THU A. DANG, and CAROLYN D.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

2
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8,
10, 12-16, 19-22, 24, 26-30, 33-36, 38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
(2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(2002).
We AFFIRM.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to database systems,
and more particularly, relates to techniques for providing multidimensional
disk clustering in relational databases and for efficient access and
maintenance of information stored in relational databases using
multidimensional disk clustering (Spec. 1, [0001]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A processor-implemented information retrieval method for
maintaining clustered data, comprising:

identifying a plurality of dimensions of a table using a plurality of
table definition parameters;

associating at least one block in a plurality of non-contiguous blocks
in the table with an associated cell, the associated cell having a unique
combination of dimension values comprising an associated dimension
value for each dimension in the plurality of dimensions;

clustering data according to dimension value, for each dimension in
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

3
the plurality of dimensions, by storing the data in the at least one
associated block without reorganization of the table;

storing storage state information regarding each block in the plurality
of blocks by providing, for each block associated with a cell, an associated
storage space indicia for indicating whether storage space is likely to be
available on the block, and a unique associated list for each cell; and

wherein storing further comprises providing, for each block in the
table, an associated empty block indicia for indicating whether the block is
empty, and a unique associated empty page bitmap for each block in the
table that indicates the status of every page in the block.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ohata US 5,864,857 Jan. 26, 1999
Pasumansky US 6,460,026 B1 Oct. 01, 2002
Lewis US 2002/0083037 A1 Jun. 27, 2002

Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12-16, 19-22, 24, 26-30, 33-36, 38, and 40 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the teachings of Ohata in view of
Pasumansky and Lewis2.

2 Though Appellants list the objection to the Specification as “First Ground
of Rejection” (App. Br. 12), objections to the Specification under MPEP
608.01(o) are not reviewable by this Board. That is, in an ex parte appeal,
the Board reviews rejections made by the Examiner. See Ex parte Gambogi,
62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001). The proper vehicle for such objection
issue is petition to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403 (CCPA 1971).
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

4
II. ISSUES
The issues are whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in determining that the combination of Ohata, Pasumansky, and Lewis
teaches or would have suggested:
a) “associating at least one block in a plurality of non-contiguous
blocks in the table with an associated cell” (claim 1); and
b) “clustering data according to dimension value, for each dimension
in the plurality of dimensions, by storing the data in the at least one
associated block without reorganization of the table” (claim 1).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Ohata
1. Ohata discloses a database management system in which a collection
of members constituting each dimension is grouped and page indexes
constituted by entries corresponding to combinations of member
groups of each dimension are assigned to a memory unit (Abstract).
2. In a multi-dimensional data model, index data to be analyzed are
named variables and dimensions are used to classify values taken by
the variables (col. 5, ll. 41-48; Fig. 3).

Furthermore, Appellants’ contention that claims 1, 15, and 29 stand objected
in this Appeal is inconsistent with the Final Rejection, and is in error.
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

5
Pasumansky
3. Pasumansky discloses a data structure wherein data from a
multidimensional space is stored in a one-dimensional space in a
storage medium (Abstract).
4. In an example of a two-dimensional slice of the database showing
sales of a product, the x axis or dimension is time and the y axis or
dimension represents geographic region, wherein all cells of the same
year are ordered with separate volumes (cells 1-40 and 41-80), while
all cells in the same quarter within a given country within a given
continent within a given year within separate volumes (cells 1-3, 4-6,
7-9… 13-14, 15-16… 21-23, 33-34… 41-43… 53-54… 61-63… 73-
74… 79-80) (col. 5, ll. 13-43; Fig. 4).
5. Pasumansky recognizes that a query can be read from continuous disk
blocks without reading unnecessary block between blocks of desired
data (col. 6, ll. 55-60).
Lewis
6. Lewis discloses an active map indicating which disk blocks are free
and which ones are in use (p. 1, [0010]).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). "[T]he PTO gives
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

6
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)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).

The Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a
patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” and
discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be
obvious. Id. at 415 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12
(1966)). The Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.
We must determine whether or not the differences between the subject
matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter
as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
See KSR, at 406. Obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid
formula, and we will consider the facts of a case and the common sense of
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

7
those skilled in the art. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007). That is, the test for obviousness is rather what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981);
In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
A reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994).

V. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12-16, 19-22, 24, 26-30, 33-36, 38, and 40
Appellants provide the same arguments with respect to the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12-16, 19-22, 24, 26-30, 33-36, 38, and 40. Therefore,
we select independent claim 1 as being representative of the cited claims.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that “neither Ohata nor Pasumansky allows for the
association of non-contiguous blocks in the table with associated cells
having unique combination of dimension values” (App. Br. 20), whereas, in
Appellants’ invention, “it is not necessary for the blocks to be contiguous
and thus their accessibility is facilitated and rendered flexible as less data
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

8
reorganization is required” (id.). In particular, Appellants contend that
“Examiner interprets non-consecutive blocks and reading only necessary
blocks as non-contiguous blocks” (App. Br. 21) which differs from
Appellants’ description “as not touching” (id.), because “Appellants teach
that assignment of a block to a cell, or mapping, is independent of the
location of the block” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that Pasumansky teaches that “the query
is reading only wanted blocks and skipping all the unwanted ones, which
examiner interpreted as non-contiguous blocks” (Ans. 27).
Thus, we determine on this Appeal whether the combination of Ohata,
Pasumansky and Lewis teaches or would have suggested “associating at
least one block in a plurality of non-contiguous blocks in the table with an
associated cell” (claim 1).
We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324. Furthermore, our analysis
will not read limitations into the claims from the specification. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
Appellants’ contention that “neither Ohata nor Pasumansky allows for
the association of non-contiguous blocks in the table with associated cells”
is not commensurate with the language of claim 1. That is, contrary to
Appellants’ contention, claim 1 does not recite any “association of non-
contiguous blocks” limitation. In fact, claim 1 merely recites “associating at
least one block (in a plurality of non-contiguous blocks)” (emphasis added).
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

9
Accordingly, we will not read the association of at least one block as the
association of “non-contiguous blocks,” as Appellants contend. Similarly,
Appellants’ contentions that, in Appellants’ invention, “it is not necessary
for the blocks to be contiguous and thus their accessibility is facilitated and
rendered flexible” and that “assignment of a block to a cell, or mapping, is
independent of the location of the block” (App. Br. 20-21) also are not
commensurate with the language of claim 1, and we will not limit the
interpretation of the language of claim 1 to such unrecited features.
Pasumansky discloses a data structure wherein data from a
multidimensional space is stored in a one-dimensional space in a storage
medium (FF 3), wherein each cell or block in a table is mapped to an
associated cell or block in storage (FF 4). In fact, even Appellants admit
that “Pasumansky teaches mapping a grid point or a cell to one disk block of
a disk storage device” (App. Br. 21, emphases added). Furthermore,
Pasumansky teaches ordering of cells or blocks in separate volumes in a
table, wherein cell/block 3 is non-contiguous with cell/block 4, and
cell/block 6 is non-contiguous with cell/block 7, for example (FF 4). An
artisan would have understood that Pasumansky teaches a plurality of non-
contiguous cells or blocks in a table, wherein at least one block in the table
is associated with an associated cell or block in storage. Thus, we conclude
that Pasumansky would have suggested associating at least one block in a
plurality of non-contiguous blocks in the table with an associated cell, as
required by claim 1.
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

10
Even if claim 1 requires associating a plurality of non-contiguous
blocks in the table with an associated cell, and not just one of a plurality of
non-contiguous blocks, as Appellants contend, Pasumanksy also would have
suggested such association. In particular, Pasumansky teaches associating
each of the blocks with an associated cell (FF4), wherein the associated
blocks include a plurality of contiguous blocks, such as block 3 non-
contiguous with block 4, and block 6 non-contiguous with block 7, for
example (FF 4). That is, Pasumansky teaches associating non-contiguous
blocks 3, 4, 6 and 7, for example, with an associated cell.
Further, as the Examiner finds, Pasumansky teaches associating “only
wanted blocks and skipping all the unwanted ones” (Ans. 27). That is,
Pasumansky discloses that a query can be read from disk blocks without
reading unnecessary block between blocks of desired data (FF 5). Though
Appellants contend that “Examiner interprets non-consecutive blocks and
reading only necessary blocks as non-contiguous blocks” (App. Br. 21)
which differs from Appellants’ description “as not touching” (id.), an artisan
would have understood that disk blocks with unnecessary blocks
therebetween are non-contiguous, i.e., non-touching blocks.
By asserting that the Examiner’s interpretation of “non-consecutive
blocks” as “non-contiguous blocks” is in error, Appellants appear to be
arguing that Pasumanksy does not teach or suggest associating a plurality of
consecutive but non-contiguous blocks with associated cells. Again, such
“consecutive” term is not recited in claim 1 and such argument is not
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

11
commensurate with the language of claim 1. Furthermore, Pasumansky
teaches associating a plurality of consecutive but non-contiguous blocks,
such as block 3 non-contiguous with block 4, and block 6 non-contiguous
with block 7, for example (FF 4).
Thus, we conclude that Pasumansky in combination with Ohata and
Lewis teaches or would have suggested “associating at least one block in a
plurality of non-contiguous blocks in the table with an associated cell”
(claim 1).
Appellants further argue that “Ohata teaches that ‘the data on the page
including the overflown page may be rearranged in order of sorted values of
the cell ID” and “further teaches presorting the data in the page” (App. Br.
22), and thus, “Ohata teaches away from the concept of ‘without
reorganization of tables’” (App. Br. 23). Appellants contend that such
teaching differs from Appellants’ invention which teaches “loading data in
to a table using presorting and also inserting a record into a block in a table
with no requirement for preloading while still associating the inserted record
with a dimension and a cell” (App. Br. 22).
However, the Examiner finds that Ohata “shows the linear allocation
of the records” and that “Examiner interprets the linear allocation as storing
without reorganization of the table and compressed allocation as storing with
reorganization of the table” (Ans. 29).
Thus, we determine on this Appeal whether the combination of Ohata,
Pasumansky and Lewis teaches or would have suggested “clustering data
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

12
according to dimension value, for each dimension in the plurality of
dimensions, by storing the data in the at least one associated block without
reorganization of the table” (claim 1).
Appellants’ contention that Appellants’ invention teaches “loading
data into a table using presorting and also inserting a record into a block in a
table with no requirement for preloading while still associating the inserted
record with a dimension and a cell” is not commensurate with the language
of claim 1. We will not read such “presorting” or “inserting… with no
requirement for preloading” into claim 1.
Claim 1 merely recites “clustering data… by storing the data in the at
least one associated block without reorganization of the table” (emphasis
added). Thus, claim 1 defines “clustering data” as storing the data in at least
one associated block, without reorganization of the table. Accordingly, we
interpret claim 1 as requiring storing data in one (or more) associated block,
wherein the table is not reorganized by the storing step.
Ohata discloses a database management system in which data is
clustered according to dimension value and assigned to associated block in a
memory unit (FF 1). An artisan would have understood that Ohata teaches
storing data in one associated block. Further, as the Examiner finds, Ohata
“shows the linear allocation of the records” which the Examiner interprets as
“storing without reorganization of the table” (Ans. 29). The artisan would
also have understood that storing in one associated block in a linear
allocation as taught by Ohata would not reorganize the table. That is, Ohata
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

13
does not teach away from the concept of “without reorganization of table”
because, by not reorganizing the table, the artisan would not be discouraged
from following the path set out in Ohata. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553.
Accordingly, we conclude that Ohata in combination with
Pasumansky and Lewis teaches or would have suggested “clustering data
according to dimension value, for each dimension in the plurality of
dimensions, by storing the data in the at least one associated block without
reorganization of the table,” as required by claim 1.
Appellants further argue that “the variables as used by Ohata are not
table definition parameters because the term ‘variable’ in Ohata refers to the
contents of ‘the amount of sales’ and ‘the number of goods sold’, not to table
definition parameters characterizing the dimensions” (App. Br. 24).
However, claim 1 does not place any limitation or context on what the term
“table definition parameters” means, includes, or represents other than that
they are used for “identifying a plurality of dimensions of a table.” Thus, we
will not limit the “table definition parameters” of claim 1 to parameters
“characterizing the dimensions,” as Appellants argue. Instead, we interpret
claim 1 as requiring parameters used to identify the dimensions.
The Examiner finds that, in Ohata, “[d]imensions are used to classify
values taken by the variables and are constituted by a collection of
dimension members representative of kinds of classification,” and thus
“interprets variables as parameters” (Ans. 30). We agree with the Examiner.
In particular, in Ohata, dimensions are used to classify values taken by the
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

14
variables (FF 2). That is, Ohata’s variables are used to identify the
dimensions of the table, and thus, we interpret the variables to be “table
definition parameters” used for “identifying a plurality of dimensions of a
table,” as required in claim 1.
As to Lewis, though Appellants admit that “Lewis indicates only
whether a block is full or empty,” Appellants argue that in Appellants
invention, the “storage space indicia… indicates whether the storage space is
likely to be available” (App. Br. 28). However, claim 1 does not place any
limitation or context on what the term “storage space indicia” means,
includes, or represents other than that it is for “indicating whether storage
space is likely to be available on the block.”
Lewis discloses an active map indicating which disk blocks are free
and which ones are in use (FF 6). The Examiner finds that, in Lewis, “the
blockmaps/bitmap are used to determine whether space is available on the
block” (Ans. 36). An artisan would have understood Lewis’s
blockmap/bitmap, which indicates which blocks are free and which are in
use, is for “indicating whether storage space is likely to be available on the
block,” as required in claim 1.
Appellants also argue that Pasumansky does not provide any teaching
or suggestion to support modifying the Ohata design (App. Br. 26), and that
the Examiner’s reason for the combination of Ohata, Pasumansky and Lewis
is “in hindsight, without referring to any substantive (or significant) teaching
or suggestion in Lewis in support of such combination” (App. Br. 29).
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

15
However, obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula, and
we will consider the facts of a case and the common sense of those skilled in
the art. See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1161.
As the Examiner finds, “Ohata’s invention is directed towards a multi-
dimensional data management method,” “Pasumansky’s invention is
directed towards efficient mapping of three-dimensional data to linear
storage mediums” (Ans. 34), and the cited references “are analogous arts as
being directed to multidimensional data and Pasumansky’s teaching would
have allowed Ohata to maximize the speed access of data and minimize the
number of disk accesses required for data retrieval when analyzing the
multidimensional data [as set forth in Pasumansky]” (Ans. 35).
Furthermore, the Examiner finds that “Lewis’s invention is directed
towards… a bitmap describing which blocks are free and which are in use”
(Ans. 37), and that “Lewis’ teaching would have allowed Ohata and
Pasumanksy to use blockmaps as an indication of space available in the
block and this technique provides quick and efficient capturing of the
contents in the block [as set forth in Lewis]” (Ans. 38).
Appellants have presented no evidence that adding the teachings of
Pasumansky of efficient mapping of multidimensional data to Ohata’s
multidimensional data management, or the teaching of Lewis’ teaching of
indicating which blocks are free for use "was uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" (see Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at
1162), nor have Appellants presented evidence that these "represented an
Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

16
unobvious step over the prior art" (id.). Rather, Appellants’ invention is
simply an arrangement of the well-known teachings of efficient mapping
and indicating free blocks for usage with the well-known teaching of
managing multidimensional data. The combined teachings of the references
represent merely a combination of familiar elements according to known
methods and do no more than yield predictable results. See KSR, at 416.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 5-8, 10, 12-16, 19-22, 24,
26-30, 33-36, 38, and 40 falling therewith over the teachings of Ohata,
Pasumansky and Lewis under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12-16, 19-22, 24, 26-30, 33-36, 38, and 40 are
unpatentable over the teachings of Ohata, Pasumansky and Lewis.
(2) Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12-16, 19-22, 24, 26-30, 33-36, 38, and 40
are not patentable over the prior art of record.

VII. DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.

Appeal 2008-005133
Application 10/425,781

17
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

rwk

Kunzler & McKenzie
8 EAST BROADWAY
SUITE 600
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111