Ex Parte Harizopoulos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2016

12768088 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121768,088 04/27/2010
22879 7590 01/29/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stavros HARIZOPOULOS
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.
82260857 4917
EXAMINER
ALLEN,BRITTANYN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01129/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ST A VROS HARIZOPOULOS and ALKIVIADIS SIMITSIS 1
Appeal2013-007457
Application 12/768,088
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Hewlett-Packard Company.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2013-007457
Application 12/768,088
The disclosed invention relates to methods, and systems for column-
oriented storage in a row-oriented data base management system. Spec.
i-f 13, Abstract.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claim Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows:
1. A method of adapting a row-oriented database management
system to store and access column-oriented information,
compnsmg:
providing data in one or more columns, each datum
associated with a position within a column;
creating a list of one or more records per column, each
record including a plurality of values stored in an order of
position within the column, and each record further including a
first positional indicator indicating positional information for
the values in the record; and
creating an index to access a value stored in a record,
wherein the index includes an index parameter derived from
each record in the list and the index parameters are ordered in
accordance with an order of records in the list.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Netz (US 2010/0030796 Al) and "ITL"
("Introduction to Database Systems," ITL Education Solutions Limited
(2008) available at
http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/databases/978813 l 73925).
Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Netz, ITL, and Bear (US 2011/0016157 Al).
Claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Netz, ITL, and Applicants' Admitted Prior Art.
2
Appeal2013-007457
Application 12/768,088
Claims 12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Netz, ITL, and Finlay (US 2001/0047350 Al).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action, and the arguments in the Reply Brief presented in response the
Examiner's Answer. We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's
findings and conclusions of law. We highlight and address specific findings
and arguments for emphasis below.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that Netz's dictionary
720 corresponds to the claimed index because Netz's dictionary 720 does
not allow the DIDs to be quickly found in the encoded column 710. App.
Br. 4. Appellants further argue Netz's dictionary 720 does not access a
value stored in a record because Netz does not have any mechanism to
search and retrieve a nrn from the encoded column 710. Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because they are premised
on certain narrow definitions urged by Appellants for the terms "index" and
"access." See App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 2. During prosecution, claim terms are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification as
they would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants do not direct us to
sufficient objective evidence to demonstrate that one with ordinary skill in
the art would understand that: (1) "an 'index' is a data structure that allows
values to be quickly found in the list without reading the whole list;" and (2)
"'access' means to search and retrieve a value." See App. Br. 3 (citing Spec.
i-fi-129--34); see also Reply Br. 2. We further decline to read limitations into
3
Appeal2013-007457
Application 12/768,088
the claims from the Specification for the terms "index" and "access," as
suggested by Appellants. See App. Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellants further argue Netz does not disclose that dictionary 720 is
generated from the encoded column 710. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. We are
not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because claim 1 does not require
the index to be derived from the list. Instead, claim 1 recites the index
includes index parameters derived from each record in the list. We agree
with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings that Netz teaches index
Parameters "1 ""2 "and "3" derived from each record "Seattle" "LA" and ' ' ' ' '
"Redmond" in the list (i.e., column 700). See Netz Fig. 7.
Lastly, Appellants argue Netz does not teach "the index parameters
are ordered in accordance with an order of records in the list," recited in
claim 1 because Netz teaches two mappings that repeat the first mapping
(i.e., 1 =Seattle, 2=LA, 3=Redmond, 1 =Seattle, 1 =Seattle). App. Br. 4;
Reply Br. 2. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because the language
of claim 1 does not preclude the index parameters from being repeated when
"ordered in accordance with an order of records in the list." We agree with,
and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings that Netz teaches index
parameters "1," "2," and "3" ordered in accordance with the order of the
records "Seattle," "LA," and "Redmond" in the list (i.e., column 700). See
Netz Fig. 7.
As for dependent claim 2, Appellants argue Netz and ITL do not
disclose "each record further including a second positional indicator, and
wherein the first positional indicator indicates the position in the column of
the first value in the record." App. Br. 5. Appellants assert that assuming
Netz is modified with ITL's slotted page structure, the modified record
4
Appeal2013-007457
Application 12/768,088
would not disclose the position in the column of the first value of the record.
Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because they focus on the
teachings of ITL alone, rather than addressing the combined teachings of
Netz and ITL explained by the Examiner. The Examiner relies on Netz for
teaching the first positional indicator indicates the position in the column of
the first value in the record, in combination with ITL' s teachings of a second
positional indicator that indicates the total number of values stored in the
record. Final Act. 4, 15-16 (citing Netz Fig. 5; ITL 229); Ans. 3 (citing
Netz Fig. 5, i-fi-162---68; ITL 229). The Examiner further finds that ITL
teaches a first positional indicator by disclosing the location in the record of
the value. Ans. 3 (citing ITL 229). The Examiner explains that ITL's
location of the values in combination with Netz teaching that each value of
the column is stored in order, teaches the location of the value determines
the position in the column. Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that Netz discloses a column can
be divided into segments that hold values. Reply Br. 3 (citing Netz i169).
Appellants contend that Netz' s teachings as modified by ITL would result in
a modified record that would include the position of each value within that
segment and that segment alone. Id. Appellants further argue that each
modified record would not disclose the position of each value within the
column because the slotted page structure identifies location of each record
within a disk block and that disk block alone. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's additional arguments in the
Reply Brief. The Examiner does not rely on the Netz's teachings of an
embodiment in which the data is segmented across each of the columns. See
5
Appeal2013-007457
Application 12/768,088
Final Act 4; Ans. 3. In addition, the teachings of ITL are not limited to an
indicator of location/position of each record within a disk block, as
suggested by Appellants. The use of patents as references is not limited to
what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with
which they are concerned, as they are part of the literature and a relevant for
all they contain. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In
re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)). We agree with, and adopt
as our own, the Examiner's determination that the teachings of Netz and
ITL, when combined, teach the disputed limitations of dependent claim 2.
See Final Act. 4, 15-16 (citing Netz Fig. 5; ITL 229 ); Ans. 3 (citing Netz
Fig. 5, ifif 62---68; ITL 229).
For all these reasons we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of
claims 1 and 2, and the rejections of claims 3-20, not separately and
substantively argued.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
gvw
6