Ex Parte Jain

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2017

13276803 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 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.
13/276,803 10/19/2011 Rohit N. Jain 82755135 1650
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
BUI, THUY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@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 ROHIT N. JAIN1
Appeal 2016-004182
Application 13/276,803
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant’s Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies the real party in interest as The
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, a wholly-owned affiliate of
Hewlett-Packard Company. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-004182
Application 13/276,803
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to using a database to translate a natural key
to a surrogate key. See Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
associating a natural key-to-surrogate key mapping with
a table of a database; and
in response to an access to the database involving access
to the table and specifying a natural key, using the database to
translate the natural key to a surrogate key based at least in part
on the mapping,
wherein the access comprises a request specifying the
natural key and being submitted to the database and using the
database to translate the natural key to the surrogate key
comprises using a compiler of the database to transform the
request to replace the natural key with the surrogate key based
at least in part on the mapping.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Barsness et al. (“Barsness”) US 2007/0226177 A1 Sept. 27, 2007
Biedenstein et al. (“Biedenstein”) US 2008/0059524 Al Mar. 6, 2008
Ralph Kimball & Joe Caserta, The Data Warehouse ETL Toolkit:
Practical Techniques for Extracting, Cleaning Conforming and
Delivering Data Ch. 6 (John Wiley & Sons (US), Wiley Publishing, Inc.
2004) (“Kimball”)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 7—11, and 14—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Kimball and Barsness.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
2
Appeal 2016-004182
Application 13/276,803
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Kimball, Barsness, and Biedenstein.
ISSUES FOR DECISION
(1) Has the Examiner erred in finding the Kimball and Barsness
combination teaches or suggests using a compiler to perform a natural key to
surrogate key translation as required by claim 1?
(2) Has the Examiner erred in finding Kimball teaches natural key-
to-surrogate key mapping associated with a database table as required by
claim 1?
(3) Has the Examiner erred in finding Kimball teaches “a
dimension table” and a “declaration of the dimension table” as recited in
claim 2?
(4) Has the Examiner erred in finding Kimball teaches “a fact
table” and a “declaration of the fact table” as recited in claim 4?
(5) Has the Examiner erred in finding Biedenstein teaches or
suggests each of the limitations recited in claim 5?
(6) Has the Examiner erred in finding Biedenstein teaches or
suggests each of the limitations recited in claim 6?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
Claim 1 recites “using the database to translate the natural key to a
surrogate key based at least in part on the mapping . . . using a compiler of
3
Appeal 2016-004182
Application 13/276,803
the database . . . App. Br. (Claims Appendix)2. In rejecting claim 1, the
Examiner finds the combination of Kimball and Barsness teaches this
limitation. More particularly, the Examiner finds Kimball teaches using a
database to translate a natural key to a surrogate key based at least in part on
the mapping. Non-Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner also acknowledges
“Kimball does not explicitly disclose using the compiler of the database.”
Id. at 3^4. To cure this deficiency, the Examiner relies on Barsness, finding
it “discloses using a compiler of the database.” Id. at 4.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s findings are in error because
“neither Kimball nor Barsness discloses or renders obvious using a compiler
to perform a natural key to surrogate key translation” and the Examiner
“fails to advance any plausible reason to explain why one of ordinary skill
would have derived the missing elements.” App. Br. 11. Appellant
reiterates the argument in the Reply Brief, contending the limitation is not
taught or suggested because “Kimball merely discusses replacing a natural
dimension key with a surrogate key, and Barsness merely teaches a
compiler.” Reply Br. 1—2.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Appellant’s argument is
not commensurate with the rejection made by the Examiner because it
attacks the references singly, and the rejection was based on their combined
teachings. The Examiner finds Kimball discloses using the database to
translate the natural key to the surrogate key as recited in the claim. Ans. 3.
We agree with this finding, and we specifically note the statement on page 5
2 Our references to the Claims Appendix in this decision are in specific
reference to the Claims Appendix filed September 18, 2015, in response to
the Notice of Defective Appeal Brief.
4
Appeal 2016-004182
Application 13/276,803
of Kimball that “[w]e take each natural dimension key in the incoming fact
table record and replace it with the correct current surrogate key,” as well as
the depiction of the key mapping process shown in Figure 6.3. Kimball 5.
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Barsness paragraph 42
teaches using a compiler in query translation. Ans. 4. In light of these
findings, we agree with the Examiner a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have sought to improve Kimball’s system by implementing the
compiler taught by Barsness so that the natural key to surrogate key
translation can be made more efficient by executing machine code instead of
interpreting SQL commands.3
Second Issue
Appellant also contends the Examiner erred in finding Kimball
teaches “associating a natural key-to-surrogate key mapping with a table of a
database,” as recited in claim 1. More specifically, Appellant argues both
Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.12 of Kimball, each relied upon by the Examiner,
fail to disclose or render obvious this limitation. With respect to Figure 6.3
of Kimball, Appellant argues the figure and its associated description merely
discuss replacing various schema with surrogate keys. According to
Appellant, there is no disclosure of any mapping or any association of such a
mapping with a table. We disagree.
3 Appellant’s argument seems to suggest a single reference must teach the
entire phrase of “using the database to translate the natural key to the
surrogate key comprises using a compiler of the database.” The law of
obviousness imposes no such requirement, as “[t]he test for obviousness is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
5
Appeal 2016-004182
Application 13/276,803
Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, Figure 6.3 of Kimball explicitly
shows it is operating on a “Fact Table Record” and not a database schema.
See Kimball 5, Fig. 6.3 (table heading). As such, the operations described in
Figure 6.3 are associated with a table of a database. Moreover, Kimball’s
Figure 6.3 also shows the replacement of each natural key being based on
various key mappings between the natural key and an associate surrogate
key. For example, the replacement of the time_ID with a surrogate
time_key is based on the “Most Recent Time Key Map” shown in the figure.
Id. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Kimball teaches “associating a natural key-to-surrogate key mapping with a
table of a database,” and we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well
corresponding independent claims 8 and 15 which are not separately argued,
and for which we treat claim 1 as representative.
Third Issue
Claim 2, which depends claim 1, recites the additional limitation
“wherein the database comprises a dimension table and the mapping
comprises a natural key-to-surrogate key mapping indicated by a declaration
of the dimension table.” App. Br. (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds
Kimball teaches this limitation, relying on Kimball’s Figure 6.3 and its
associated description. Ans. 5.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the table shown in
Figure 6.3 is a fact table and not a dimension table, as evidenced by the
heading “Processing a Fact Table Record.” Kimball 5, Fig. 6.3. Because
Kimball does not teach a dimension table, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 2. We also do not sustain the rejections of claims 9 and 16 for the
6
Appeal 2016-004182
Application 13/276,803
same reasons. Additionally, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3,10,
and 17, which depend variously from claims 2, 9, and 16.
Fourth Issue
Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, recites the additional limitation
“wherein the database comprises a fact table and the mapping comprises a
natural key-to-surrogate key mapping indicated by a declaration of the fact
table.” App. Br. (Claims Appendix). This claim is similar to claim 2, except
that the table in claim 4 is a “fact table” and not a “dimension table.”
In rejecting claim 4, the Examiner finds Kimball Figure 6.3 teaches a
fact table and also a natural key-to-surrogate key mapping indicated by a
declaration of the fact table. Ans. 6—7. As we noted previously in
connection with claim 2, and as acknowledged by Appellant (Reply Br. 2
[“the time_ID is part of a fact table”!), Kimball teaches a database
comprising a fact table. The issue, therefore, is whether Kimball also
teaches a natural key-to-surrogate key mapping indicated by a declaration of
the fact table. We agree with the Examiner that it does.
Kimball indicates a natural key-to-surrogate key mapping as a series
“replace” declarations applied to tables as shown Figure 6.3. Each of these
“replace” declarations indicates a natural key-to-surrogate key mapping
because it indicates a natural key field in the “Fact Table Records with
Production IDS” that is replaced with a surrogate key provided by an
associated mapping table. Kimball 5 (“We take each natural dimension key
in the incoming fact table and replace it with the correct current surrogate
key.”), Fig. 6.3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
4 as well as that of corresponding claims 11 and 18.
7
Appeal 2016-004182
Application 13/276,803
Fifth Issue
Claim 5 recites, with the disputed limitations in italics:
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the table comprises a
fact table, the fact table is associated with a dimension table, the
request comprises a request for a load to the fact table and
specifies a natural key value, and the using the database to
translate comprises:
[ujsing the compiler of the database to identify a first
surrogate key of the fact table and a second surrogate key of
the dimension table based at least in part on a first mapping
rule associated with the fact table and the natural key; and
using the compiler to transform the load request based at
least in part on the natural key value, the mapping rule
associated with the fact table and a mapping rule associated
with the dimension table.
App. Br. 22 (Claims Appendix). In rejecting claim 5, the Examiner finds
Kimball does not disclose the disputed limitations of claim 5. To cure the
deficiency, the Examiner finds Barsness teaches the use of a database
compiler, and Biedenstein discloses the remainder of the disputed
limitations. Non-Final Act. 7—8. More specifically, the Examiner finds the
cited portions of Biedenstein teaches mapping relationships between fact and
dimension tables, which is sufficient to render obvious the disputed
limitations of claim 5.
Appellant argues “Biedenstein fails to mention using a compiler to
transform a load request based [at] least in part on a natural key value, a
mapping rule associated with a fact table or a mapping rule associated with a
dimension table.” App. Br. 18. Although we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s assertion regarding the use of a compiler (as Barsness is cited
for the compiler), we agree with Appellant that Biedenstein is deficient. The
cited paragraphs in Biedenstein teach the use of join paths which indicated
8
Appeal 2016-004182
Application 13/276,803
relationships between measures in fact tables and records in dimension
tables. However, the Examiner does not identify with specificity, nor is it
apparent to us, how Biedenstein’s general use of join paths suggests any
process “identifying] a first surrogate key of the fact table and a second
surrogate key of the dimension table based at least in part on a first mapping
rule associated with the fact table and the natural key” as recited in claim 5.
For example, the Examiner points to no specific portion of Biedenstein as
disclosing a “mapping rule associated with the fact table and the natural
key.” The generalized teachings of join paths in Biedenstein have not been
shown to render obvious the specific identification process set forth in claim
5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5 or the
corresponding rejections of claims 12 and 19.
Sixth Issue
Claim 6 recites in part:
using compiler of the database to transform the query to join the
fact table with a dimension table to evaluate at least one
predicate against a natural key column that resides in the
dimension table, based at least in part on a mapping rule
associated with the fact table and a second mapping rule
associated with the dimension table.
App. Br. 22 (Claims Appendix). As with claim 5, the Examiner finds
Biedenstein renders this limitation obvious. Non-Final Act. 7—8. Appellant
argues the Examiner has failed to identify any specific teaching in
Biedenstein of a first “mapping rule associated with a fact table” and a
“second mapping rule associated with a dimension table.” Reply Br. 5. As
with claim 5, the Examiner appears to rely on a general disclosure of join
paths in Biedenstein as disclosing the recited first and second mapping rules.
Ans. 8—9. We agree with Appellant, however, that the Examiner has not
9
Appeal 2016-004182
Application 13/276,803
shown how the general use of join paths between fact tables and dimension
table provides a specific teaching of a “mapping rule associated with a fact
table” and a specific teaching of a “second mapping rule associated with a
dimension table.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5 or
the corresponding rejections of claims 13 and 20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 18 are
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17,
19, and 20 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10