Ex Parte Heman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2017

13417205 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2017)

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.
13/417,205 03/10/2012 Sandor ABC Heman 361427-991152 1015
26379 7590
DLA PIPER LLP (US )
2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248
EXAMINER
YEN, SYLING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2017 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):
PatentDocketingU S -Palo Alto @ dlapiper. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANDOR ABC HEMAN, PETER A. BONCZ,
MARCIN ZUKOWSKI, and NICOLAAS J. NES
Appeal 2017-003058
Application 13/417,205
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-003058
Application 13/417,205
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—8. Claims 9-11 are allowable. We have jurisdiction over the rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a high-performance database engine
implementing a positional delta tree update system. Spec., Title. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer system operating as a high-performance database
engine to provide for the transfer of data tuples in response to
database requests relative to a database table, said computer
system comprising:
a) a database store providing for the storage of a database
table; and
b) a central processor subsystem, including a cache
memory store and main memory store, coupled to said database
store, said central processor subsystem being operative to
execute as a database engine system responsive to database
requests received relative to said database table, including query
requests to return data tuples and update requests to store data
tuples, said database engine system including:
a write-store structure providing for the storage of
differential update data in a positional delta tree structure,
wherein said differential update data is stored with positional
data relating said differential update data with positions
defined with respect to a stable state of said database table;
a merge scan processor, coupled to said write-store
structure, operative to dynamically merge said differential
update data with read data tuples retrieved from said database
table, wherein said positional data identifies the merge
position of said differential update data with respect said
stable state positions of said read data tuples, whereby the
merger of said differential update data and read data tuples
2
Appeal 2017-003058
Application 13/417,205
provides current data tuples responsive to a predetermined
database request.
App. Br. 7 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tarin US 2008/0059492 A1 Mar. 6, 2008
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Tarin.
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION
“[T]he merges in Tarin do not occur based on a positional delta tree
that stores differential updates as recited in claim 1 since Tarin uses a
simple regeneration process in which values of the data are compared.”
App. Br. 5.
ANALYSIS
Appellants’ contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. We adopt
as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—20) and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—10) and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
3
Appeal 2017-003058
Application 13/417,205
The Examiner finds Tarin anticipates claim 1, the disputed positional
delta tree storing differential updates disclosed by Tarin’s value list or “V-
list”. Final Act. 6. Appellants argue Tarin fails to disclose the following
alleged limitations of claim 1.
1. “[A]ny element to ‘dynamically merge said differential update with
tuple data retrieved from said database table using the positional delta
tree.’”
2. “[D]ata tuple updates are stored in a positional delta tree that stores
differential updates.”
3. “[Responding to query requests that both retrieves data from the
database and ‘selectively merge said data tuple updates with said
initial sequence of data tuples using the positional delta tree data
structure to provide said current sequence of data tuples.’”
App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted.) The Examiner responds to arguments (1)
and (3) finding the argued limitations do not appear in claim 1 and, as such,
are not commensurate with the claim. Ans. 9. The Examiner responds to
argument (2), finding
As described in Tarin [0046] & [0124] - [0134], V0id (“old V-
list”) is dynamically merged with Vinc (“increment V-list”) to
Vupd (“updated V-list”), and the V-list may be tree-structured
providing for a form of directory lookup. An increment V-list
can be reasonably interpreted as a positional delta (i.e.
increment) tree structure (i.e. tree-structured), wherein the
differential update data (i.e. incremental values) is stored.
Ans. 7. The Examiner explains Tarin describes generation of a D-list to
produce the updated V-list (Vupd) and a stored-record view including a tree
structure thereby disclosing the disputed positional delta tree. Id', see also
generally Ans. 6—9.
4
Appeal 2017-003058
Application 13/417,205
We agree with the Examiner in finding Appellants’ arguments (1) and
(3) are improperly based on limitations not recited in claim 1 and are,
therefore, not persuasive. Ans. 9. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon
for patentability). Furthermore, all of Appellants’ arguments 1—3 are little
more than naked assertions claim 1 includes the argued features
(disregarding whether the argued feature is actually recited by claim 1).
Such unsupported contentions are unpersuasive of error. Mere attorney
arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual
evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Attorney argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974). Nor can such argument take the place of evidence lacking in
the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977); see also
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.”).
Addressing Appellants’ argument 2, although claim 1 includes the
substance of the argued limitation1, Appellants fail to address the
Examiner’s extensive explanation supporting a finding that Tarin’s V-list
discloses the disputed positional delta tree storing differential updates. See,
e.g., Ans. 6—9. Thus, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of Examiner
error.
1 “[A] write-store structure providing for the storage of differential update
data in a positional delta tree structure.” Claim 1.
5
Appeal 2017-003058
Application 13/417,205
For the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) over Tarin together with the rejection of dependent claims
2—8 which are not argued separately with particularity
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—8 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
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). See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6