Ex Parte Jin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

11372540 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111372,540 03/10/2006
63675 7590 09/23/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL
24 Greenway Plaza
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046-2472
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Qi Jin
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.
S VL920060026US 1 6950
EXAMINER
PARK, GRACE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QI JIN, HUI LIAO, SRIRAM K. PADMANABHAN,
and LIN XU
Appeal2013-010369
Application 11/372,540
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-14 and 30-39, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to data processing. See generally Spec.
1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer implemented method for generating code for
an integrated data system, comprising:
Appeal2013-010369
Application 11/372,540
based on a received mixed data flow containing mixed
data flow operators which collectively define operations to be
performed to complete the mixed data flow such that a first
runtime environment to perform a given operation of the
defined operations is programmatically selected from a plurality
of different types of runtime environments, wherein at least one
of the operations performed in a first respective runtime
environment is dependent on at least one other operation
performed in a second respective runtime environment,
generating a graph containing logical operators independent of
the plurality of different types of runtime environments;
converting the graph to a model wherein the logical
operators are converted to model operators associated with the
plurality of different types of runtime environments; and
converting the model into an execution plan graph
executable on the plurality of different types of runtime
environments, by operation of one or more computer
processors.
References and Rejections
Claims 1-14 and 30-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cutsinger (US 7 ,493,311 B 1; Feb. 17, 2009),
Savage (US 6,604, 110B1; Aug. 5, 2003), and Chaudhuri (US 6,850,925 B2;
Feb. 1, 2005).
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
2
Appeal2013-010369
Application 11/372,540
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below. 1
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
Issue 1
Appellants contend the cited references do not collectively teach
converting the graph to a model wherein the logical
operators are converted to model operators associated with the
plurality of different types of runtime environments; and
converting the model into an execution plan graph
executable on the plurality of different types of runtime
environments, by operation of one or more computer
processors,
as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 10-14. In particular, Appellants assert:
Chaudhuri is still silent on any sub-plan query statements
that include model operators associated with different types of
runtime environments, the model operators being converted
from logical operators. Chaudhuri is also silent on the final
query execution plan being executable on the different types of
runtime environments. Further, Savage and Cutsinger do not
cure these deficiencies of Chaudhuri. Because Cutsinger, even
in view of Savage and Chaudhuri, does not disclose at least the
underlined limitations above [.]
App. Br. 13-14.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner provides detailed findings showing Cutsinger,
1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
3
Appeal2013-010369
Application 11/372,540
Savage, and Chaudhuri collectively teach the disputed claim limitations. See
Ans. 14--16. In particular, the Examiner cites Savage's disclosures and
explains why Cutsinger and Savage collectively teach "converting the graph
to a model wherein the logical operators are converted to model operators
associated with the plurality of different types of runtime environments," as
recited in claim 1. See Ans. 15. Further, the Examiner cites Chaudhuri's
disclosures and explains why Cutsinger, Savage, and Chaudhuri collectively
teach "converting the model into an execution plan graph executable on the
plurality of different types of runtime environments, by operation of one or
more computer processors," as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 15.2 Appellants
fail to persuasively respond to such findings and, therefore, fail to show
error in the Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court [or this Board]
to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking
for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.").
Further, Appellants' assertion that "Cutsinger, even in view of Savage
and Chaudhuri, does not disclose at least the underlined limitations above"
(App. Br. 14) lacks the requisite analysis, and, therefore, is unpersuasive.
See 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"); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(holding that "the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
2 We understand the Examiner's finding to mean because Cutsinger and
Savage collectively teach "the plurality of different types of runtime
environments," Chaudhuri does not need to teach that claim term separately.
4
Appeal2013-010369
Application 11/372,540
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art").
Issue 2
Appellants argue "the rationale of the Office for the proposed
modification of Cutsinger using Savage and Chaudhuri is merely
conclusory" because it is unclear what benefits are achieved through the
proposed modification. App. Br. 14.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. The U.S. Supreme Court
has held "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Further,
"[i]f the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under§ 103" and "the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner has provided an
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one skilled in
the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Cutsinger,
Savage, and Chaudhuri. See Ans. 4--5, 16-17. In particular, the Examiner
finds the combination would have "facilitate[ d] the coordination of
interaction between different data sources" and "allow[ ed] a user or
computing system to analyze plans for potential optimization that will yield
accurate cost estimates for execution." Ans. 5, 17. Appellants do not
persuasively show why such reasoning is incorrect.
5
Appeal2013-010369
Application 11/372,540
The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Appellants do not present adequate
evidence that the resulting arrangements were "uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious
step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that applying the Savage
and Chaudhuri techniques in the Cutsinger method would have predictably
used prior art elements according to their established functions-an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. a 417.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and independent claims 30 and
34 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-14 and 31-33, which Appellants do not separately argue.
Separately Argued Dependent Claims
Regarding dependent claim 35, Appellants argue:
Cutsinger, even in view of Savage and Chaudhuri, does not
disclose at least the following limitations recited in dependent
claim 35:
[W]here the method is to generate the execution plan graph
from the mixed data flow and for execution on the plurality of
different types of runtime environments pro grammatically
selected as satisfying a set of predefined criteria;
6
Appeal2013-010369
Application 11/372,540
wherein the model operators allow for analysis of operations for
the mixed data flow, wherein the mixed data flow is received
from a user, wherein the operation is selected based on user
input, wherein a processing application is programmatically
selected, and wherein the processing application and first
runtime environment are not selected based on any user input;
wherein the plurality of different types of runtime environments
are pro grammatically selected as satisfying the set of predefined
criteria;
wherein the processing application is programmatically
determined to satisfy a predefined suitability condition, wherein
the suitability condition is satisfied upon identifying a matching
runtime environment;
wherein the mixed data flow consists of a plurality of data
flows specified in a single request from a user, wherein each
data flow in a plurality of data flows is of a distinct data type.
The cited portions of Cutsinger generally discuss ...
namespaces for queries and data sources, respectively, see
Cutsinger, col. 15, lines 15-19. At the same time, even
assuming ... that the data sources in Cutsinger correspond to
the recited plurality of different r11ntime environments
pro grammatically selected as satisfying a set of predefined
criteria, Cutsinger is still silent on any processing application
that is programmatically determined to satisfy a predefined
suitability condition, where the suitability condition is satisfied
upon identifying a matching runtime environment. Further,
Savage and Chaudhuri do not cure these deficiencies of
Cutsinger.
Further, as discussed above, the rationale of the Office
for the proposed modification of Cutsinger using Savage and
Chaudhuri is merely conclusory.
App. Br. 16-17.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner provides detailed findings showing Cutsinger,
Savage, and Chaudhuri collectively teach the disputed claim limitations. See
7
Appeal2013-010369
Application 11/372,540
Ans. 17-18. For example, the Examiner cites Cutsinger's disclosures and
explains why "wherein the processing application is programmatically
determined to satisfy a predefined suitability condition, wherein the
suitability condition is satisfied upon identifying a matching runtime
environment" is taught by or would have been obvious in light of
Cutsinger's teachings. See Ans. 17-18. Appellants fail to persuasively
respond to such findings and, therefore, fail to show error in the Examiner's
findings. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Further, Appellants' general assertion that the cited references do not
teach the disputed claim limitations (App. Br. 16-17) is unpersuasive. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
Finally, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellants have
not shown the Examiner's rationale for combining the references is merely
conclusory.
Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 35.
Regarding dependent claims 36-39, Appellants have not persuaded us
of error. Similar to the discussions above with respect to claim 35, in
response to Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 17-28), the Examiner provides
detailed findings showing Cutsinger, Savage, and Chaudhuri collectively
teach the disputed claim limitations. See Ans. 18-21. For example, the
Examiner cites prior art disclosures and explains why Cutsinger, Savage,
and Chaudhuri collectively teach the disputed claim limitations of claims
36-39. See Ans. 18-21. Appellants fail to persuasively respond to such
8
Appeal2013-010369
Application 11/372,540
findings and, therefore, fail to show error in the Examiner's findings. See
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F .2d at 391.
Further, Appellants' general assertion that the cited references do not
teach the disputed claim limitations (App. Br. 17-28) is unpersuasive. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
Finally, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellants have
not shown the Examiner's rationale for combining the references is merely
conclusory.
Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 36-39.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14 and 30-39.
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
9