Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

11566734 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte DOUGLAS BROWN, CHOUNG KIM, and ANITA
RICHARDS
____________________

Appeal 2010-009478
Application 11/566,734
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and TREVOR M.
JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009478
Application 11/566,734
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-27. Br. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The claims are directed to a system for and method of managing
database system workloads. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for managing database workloads, said
workload managing system comprising:
a historical data collector arranged to collect historical
data indicative of historical database performance trends; and
a current data collector arranged to collect substantially
current data indicative of substantially current database
performance;
the system being arranged to compare the collected
historical data with the collected substantially current data and
to modify operation of the database based on the comparison.

References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Brown
Chaudhuri
Srinivasan

Stewart
US 6,801,903B2
US 2004/0003004 A1
US 7,328,259 B23

US 7,383,266 B2
Oct. 5, 2004
Jan. 1, 2004
Feb. 5, 2008
(filed Nov. 7, 2003)
Jun. 3, 2008

1 The Real Party in Interest is Teradata US, Incorporated.
2 Throughout the decision, we make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (“Br.,” filed Jan. 19, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed Mar. 19, 2010).
3 Appellants (Br. 5) and the Examiner (Ans. 3, 6) mistakenly refer to US
Patent No. 7,328,529, which should be US Patent No. 7,328,259.
Appeal 2010-009478
Application 11/566,734
3

Thind

US 7,421,560 B2
(filed Dec. 1, 2004)
Sep. 2, 2008
(filed Nov. 30, 2004)

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-4, 9-10, 15-17, 21-22, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§102(b) as being anticipated by Chaudhuri (filed Jun. 28, 2002). Ans. 3-4.
Claims 5-6, 11-13, 18-19, and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaudhuri and Thind. Ans. 5-6.
Claims 8 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chaudhuri and Srinivasan. Ans. 6.
Claims 7 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chaudhuri and Brown. Ans. 7.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chaudhuri, Brown and Stewart. Ans. 7-8.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 – 35 U.S.C §102(b)
Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Chaudhuri
disclosed the “historical data collector” and “current data collector” and their
comparison of these collectors as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend that Chaudhuri fails to disclose the limitations of
claim 1 because Chaudhuri only “generally describes a database server,
indexes and materialized views for processing queries, and a query
optimizer” and fails to disclose “historical data indicative of historical
database performance trends” as recited in claim 1 limitation for a “historical
data collector”. Br. 7 (citing Chaudhuri ¶ [0026]). Appellants also contend
Appeal 2010-009478
Application 11/566,734
4
that Chaudhuri ¶ [0048] generally “describes solving linear algebra
equations based on benefits realized by system configurations.” Br. 8.
According to Appellants’ argument, the benefits in Chaudhuri relate to pre-
processing of a query and not the “current database performance” as recited
in claim 1. Br. 8. Since Chaudhuri fails to disclose the first two limitations
related to collecting historical and current database performance it cannot
disclose the final limitation requiring comparison of the collected and
modification of the operation of the database based on the comparison. Br.
8-9.
The Examiner found that the database optimizer in Chaudhuri ¶[0026]
is a historical data collector as claimed as it “chooses from a set of
previously executed execution plans for [executing a] query (i.e. historical
data indicative of historical database performance trends).” Ans. 9. The
Examiner also identifies “a current database collector” as shown in the
comparison step where the cost of the query is calculated against the
historical database and the most recent configuration constructed during the
tuning. Ans. 4 (citing Chaudhuri ¶[0039]).
We reviewed Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred (Br. 5-
13) and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 8-11), and agree with the Examiner.
We find that Chaudhuri discloses that in “generating execution plans, query
optimizer 224 relies on indexes or materialized views ... to estimate, for
example, the cost in time to execute the query against the database using
more than one possible execution plan” and previously stored physical
configurations. Chaudhuri ¶ [0026]; see Ans. 9. Chauduhri, ¶[0039] also
discloses a comparison in costs between the prior configuration of the
database and a most recent configuration of the database. See Ans. 4, 9-10.
“Chaudhuri discloses a system wherein a database server collects a set of
Appeal 2010-009478
Application 11/566,734
5
execution plans for a query” that include both “performance tuning against a
database until the physical configuration of the database is updated.” Ans.
10; see Chaudhuri ¶¶ [0026], [0039].
Based on the foregoing, the Examiner did not err in finding that
Chaudhuri disclosed the “historical data collector” and “current data
collector” and their comparison of these collectors as recited in claim 1. We
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C §102(b).
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 15 and 27 and dependent
claims 2-4, 9-10, 16-17 and 21-22 based on the arguments presented for
claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4, 9-
10, 15-17, 21, 22 and 27 under 35 U.S.C §102(b).
35 U.S.C §103(a) Rejections
Appellants argue claims 5-6, 11-13, 18-19, and 24-26 (Br. 9-10) based
on the arguments presented for claim 1. Appellants also make substantially
the same arguments for claims 8 and 23 (Br. 10-11) and 7 and 20 (Br. 12-13)
based on the arguments for claim 1. Appellants do not argue dependent
claim 14 separately, which stands or falls with its independent claim 1.
Thus, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-8, 11-14, 18-20,
and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C §103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-27 are
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) (2011).

Appeal 2010-009478
Application 11/566,734
6
AFFIRMED
tj