Ex Parte Graefe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

13178994 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/178,994 07/08/2011 Goetz Graefe
56436 7590 06/01/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82617324 9507
EXAMINER
ALLEN, NICHOLAS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GOETZ GRAEFE
Appeal2014-006345
Application 13/178,9941
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates to data and information
processing, including regarding hash join and hash aggregation operations,
and integrating single-input operations and multi-input operations, such as
integrating hash join and hash aggregation operations by allowing for hash
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006345
Application 13/178,994
aggregation to be applied to one or both join inputs in a hash join. Spec.
iTiT 19, 22.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is
reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight the dispositive disputed
limitation.
1. A hash integration system comprising:
a processor;
a hash join module including build and probe inputs;
a hash aggregation module to aggregate on the probe
input of the hash join module; and
a hash table generation module, executed by the
processor, to generate an integrated hash table including a
record with values from the build and aggregated probe inputs,
wherein the hash join module joins the build and
aggregated probe inputs to form a joined output.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Young-Lai (US 2008/0147599 Al;
June 19, 2008) and Abadi et al. (US 2011/0302151 Al; Dec. 8, 2011)
(hereinafter "Abadi"), collectively referred to as the "combination."
DISPOSITIVE ISSUE ON APPEAL
For this appeal, the dispositive issue is whether the Examiner erred in
finding the combination teaches or suggests "generat[ing] an integrated hash
table including a record with values from the build and aggregated probe
inputs," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 17.
2
Appeal2014-006345
Application 13/178,994
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner erred. We find Appellant's arguments with
respect to the dispositive issue persuasive.
Appellant argues the combination fails to teach or suggest generating
an integrated hash table having a record with values from the build and
aggregated probe inputs. See App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 4---6. As to Young-
Lai, Appellant argues it instead teaches a conventional hash join operation
- generating a hash table by applying a hash function to a join attribute
using the build input of the hash join and probing the hash table with the
probe input of the hash join - without integrating hash aggregation on the
probe input of the hash join operation. See App. Br. 10-11 (citing Young-
Lai i-fi-1 4 3, 4 7). Appellant also argues Young-Lai' s teaching of a
conventional hash group-by operation fails to teach or suggest aggregation
occurring on the probe input of a hash join operation. See App. Br. 11
(citing Young-Lai i153). As to Abadi, Appellant argues it instead teaches
using a group-by attribute to probe a stored hash table for a running
aggregation for that attribute rather than aggregating on the probe input of a
hash join operation. See App. Br. 12-13 (citing Abadi i-fi-143, 66); Reply Br.
4--5.
The Examiner finds Young-Lai teaches generating a hash table "from
rows received on a first input of the hash join operator which is a build input
and the hash table is probed with rows received on a second input of the
hash join operator." See Ans. 5 (citing Young-Lai i-fi-147, 53). The Examiner
concludes Young Lai thus "teaches table generation which would require the
values from the aggregated inputs." See id.
3
Appeal2014-006345
Application 13/178,994
We find Appellant's arguments persuasive. We agree that the cited
portions of the combination fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
Specifically, we agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Young-Lai
fail to teach or suggest generating an integrated hash table having a record
with values from the build and aggregated probe inputs. See Young-Lai
i-fi-147, 53. Rather, we find the cited portions of Young-Lai teach
conventional hash join and group-by operations. See id.
CONCLUSION
Our above findings and reasoning apply to each of the independent
claims on appeal - claims 1, 10, and 17 - because they each include the
disputed limitation. Further, the remaining claims on appeal - claims 2-9,
11-16, and 18-20- depend from an independent claim on appeal and
incorporate the disputed limitation.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-
20.
REVERSED
4