Ex Parte Hammerschmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2016

13172573 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2016)

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.
13/172,573 06/29/2011 Beda Christoph Hammerschmidt 50277-3870 7544
42425 7590 11/30/2016
HTPKMAN PAT F.RMO RFFTCFR RTNOTTAM/OR AFT F
EXAMINER
1 Almaden Boulevard CHEN, TE Y
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2016 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BEDA CHRISTOPH HAMMERSCHMIDT, ZHEN HUA LIU,
GEETA ARORA, and THOMAS BABY
Appeal 2015-008213
Application 13/172,5731
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—13. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “[a] method and apparatus for
automatically analyzing and providing feedback regarding the optimizability
of a relational database query.” Abstract. In particular, “the present
1 The real party in interest is Oracle International Corporation.
Appeal 2015-008213
Application 13/172,573
invention is addressed to providing tools to help query developers write
optimizable queries.” Spec. 11.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
generating a query plan for executing a query conforming
to a database language;
wherein generating a query plan includes:
incorporating one or more operators into the query
plan, wherein each of the one or more operators comprises
a primitive operation; and
generating query plan formation data that specifies
one or more factors causing the incorporating of said one
or more operators in the query plan;
based on one or more criteria, generating query plan
display output that includes for each operator of said one or more
operators:
output identifying said each operator; and
output identifying a factor of said one or more
factors causing the incorporating of said each operator in
the query plan;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bossman (US 2003/0182276 Al; pub. Sept. 25, 2003) and
Larson (US 8,560,523 B2; filed June 26, 2008). Final Act. 5—11.
Claims 10—12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bossman, Larson, and Manikutty (US 7,120,645 B2; Oct. 10, 2006).
Final Act. 11—14.
2
Appeal 2015-008213
Application 13/172,573
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Bossman and Larson
Claims 1—9 and 13
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1—9 and 13.
Appellants assert that Bossman and Larson combined fails to teach or
suggest (1) generating query plan formation data that specifies one or more
factors causing the incorporating of said one or more operators in the query
plan and (2) generating query plan display output including, for each
operator of said one or more operators, an output identifying a factor of said
one or more factors causing the incorporating of said each operator in the
query plan. App. Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 4—6. For example, Appellants
contend that
the output of Bossman includes “specific recommendations such
as new indexes, different join methods, table spaces, etc.”
However, these are only general recommendations to address
“common causes of SQL performance problems”, as identified
by the Office Action on page 7. In contrast, Claim 1 specifically
requires that the output identifies a factor that causes an
operator to be incorporated into the current query plan.
None of the art of record, singly or in combination, teach or even
suggest this limitation.
App. Br. 15.2 Similarly, Appellants point out that neither Bossman’s
explanation information nor Bossman’s “more detailed analysis of the base
access plan” by the estimates validator or the query analyzer identify “a
2 We note that Appellants also assert that Larson fails to teach this
limitation. The Examiner, however, merely relies on Larson for teaching an
output identifying each operator, not the recited factor that causes an
operator to be incorporated into the current query plan. See Final Act. 7—8.
3
Appeal 2015-008213
Application 13/172,573
factor of said one or more factors causing the incorporating of said each
operator in the query plan, or otherwise give any reason why any particular
operator was incorporated in any particular query plan.” Reply Br. 5—6; see
also Reply Br. 4—5 (noting that the Examiner’s rejection identifies
“numerous factors” but fails to focus on the recited claim language).
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Bossman describes a
visual plan hint component that generates an explanation of the query in a
graphical user interface (GUI) to display or output to administrators. The
visual plan hint component also displays visual plan optimization hints and
other suggested modifications. Bossman || 37—38; see also Bossman 136
(noting that the visual plan hint may further provide, for example,
component level modification of an access path, assistance with
optimization hint problem determination, and generation of a partial or
complete optimization hint).
We understand the Examiner’s rejection to be that the visual plan hint
component output of these various factors, such as the query explanation and
suggested modifications, either alone or in combination satisfy the limitation
of an output, for each operator, identifying a factor causing the incorporating
of said each operator in the query plan. See Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 14—16.
Notably absent in the Examiner’s rejection, though, is sufficient explanation
as to how these generally described outputs read on identifying, for each
operator, a factor causing the incorporating of each operator in the query
plan or that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the
invention. In other words, we agree with Appellants that the general
4
Appeal 2015-008213
Application 13/172,573
teaching of outputting “explanation information” or “recommendations”,
without more, fails to satisfy the recited output limitation.
Similarly, while Bossman describes generating explanation
information for a base access plan and using that information for further
analysis to provide recommendations on how to improve a query plan
(Bossman || 32, 38), the Examiner fails to sufficiently identify how
Bossman’s general reference to explanation information and other
intermediate analysis results, such as estimation errors, performance
problems, etc., satisfy the limitation of query plan formation data that
specifies one or more factors causing incorporating of said one or more
operators into the current query plan. See, e.g., Final Act. 6. As such, we
are persuaded, based on the current record, that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Bossman and Larson teach or suggest the
generating query plan formation data and an output identifying a factor
limitations, as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not affirm the rejection of claim 1 as well as
claims 2—9 and 13 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Bossman and
Larson.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Bossman, Larson, and
Manikutty
Claims 10—12
Each of claims 10—12 depend indirectly from claim 1. The additional
cited prior art reference here, Manikutty, does not cure the deficiencies of
the combination of Bossman and Larson discussed above. See, e.g., Final.
5
Appeal 2015-008213
Application 13/172,573
Act. 11—12. As such, for the reasons discussed above, we find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10—12.
Accordingly, we do not affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10—
12 as unpatentable over Bossman, Larson, and Manikutty.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—13 is reversed.
REVERSED
6