Ex Parte Swett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2017

13549047 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 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.
13/549,047 07/13/2012 Ian SWETT 114716-8083.US02 6300
22862 7590 12/28/2017
FNN PATFNT TtROTTP
EXAMINER
c/o Perkins Coie LLP MACKES, KRIS E
P.O. Box 1247
Seattle, WA 98111-1247 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2017 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):
patentprocurement @perkinscoie. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAN SWETT and W. DANIEL HILLIS
Appeal 2016-006427
Application 13/549,047
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12—24, and 26, which are all of the pending claims.
Claims 3,11, and 25 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-006427
Application 13/549,047
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to “database
management,” and more particularly, to “redundant, multi-dimensional data
partitioning” (Spec. 1,11. 21—23).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer-implemented method for use in a database
system, wherein a tuple space associated with the database
system has a plurality of dimensions, and wherein each
dimension of the plurality of dimensions corresponds to a range
of possible values for a key within a key list defining the tuple
space, the method comprising:
partitioning a plurality of instances of the tuple space,
wherein the partitioning includes
partitioning a first instance of the tuple space along a first
dimension of the plurality of dimensions, to create a plurality of
partitions of the first instance of the tuple space, and
partitioning a second instance of the tuple space along a
second dimension of the plurality of dimensions, to create a
plurality of partitions of the second instance of the tuple space,
wherein a tuple that lies within a partition in the first
instance of the tuple space lies within a partition in the second
instance of the tuple space;
storing all of the partitions of the plurality of instances of
the tuple space separately from each other in the database
system; and
handling a transaction that is restricted along less than all
of the partitioned dimensions by accessing a single one of the
stored partitions.
C. REJECTION
Claims 1,2, 4—10, 12—24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Sinclair (US 7,949,687 Bl; issued May 24,
2011) and Calder et al. (US 2010/0106934 Al; published Apr. 29, 2010
(hereinafter “Calder”)).
2
Appeal 2016-006427
Application 13/549,047
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding:
1. The Declaration filed on July 25, 2014 under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is
ineffective to overcome Calder.
2. Sinclair, in view of Calder, teaches or suggests “partitioning a first
instance of the tuple space along a first dimension . . “partitioning a
second instance of the tuple space along a second dimension . . and
“handling a transaction that is restricted along less than all of the partitioned
dimensions” (claim 1).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Sinclair
1. Sinclair discloses logically representing data as a single table, but
storing the data as a plurality of over-lapping partitions (Abst.). Figure 5 is
reproduced below:
3
Appeal 2016-006427
Application 13/549,047
Partitas
Figure 5 illustrates the partitioning of a table across a plurality of data
storage resources (col. 2,11. 9-10). As shown in Figure 5, first partition
PARTI include a stored copy of data in columns Cl thru C6, PART 2
include a stored copy of data in columns C5 through CIO, wherein partitions
PARTI and PART2 have overlapping datasets (col. 2,11. 48—58).
2. Since partitions PARTI and PART2 overlap, with each having
duplicate copies of columns C5 and C6, frequent queries can access
requested data through a single partition and are not required to scan through
unneeded data (col. 2,1. 64 to col. 3,1. 2).
3. Data within a partition is not required to reside in a localized or
contiguous region of a single data storage resource but could be arbitrarily
fragmented or distributed across several different data storage resources (col.
4
Appeal 2016-006427
Application 13/549,047
3,11. 11—21). For example, a partition is formed by even columns C2,
C4, . . ., CIO, or by some combination of column segments and row
segments (col. 3,11. 29—33). Partitions may be organized as groups of
adjacent columns or column segments using “vertical partitioning” or as
groups of adjacent rows or row segments using “horizontal partitioning”
(col. 3,11. 36-43).
IV. ANALYSIS
131 Declaration
Appellants contend that Calder is not prior art because “Exhibit B,
Item 2, and the Declaration Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.131 dated 07 November
2014, show both conception of the invention, as well as actual reduction to
practice before Calder” (App. Br. 17). In particular, Appellants contend that
Exhibit B, Item 2 “explicitly states on page 3: ‘. . . The invention has been
fully built and tested. . . . Implementation of the invention began in 2007
November’” (id.).
However, we agree with the Examiner that “[i]n order to show an
actual reduction to practice, Applicant must provide some evidence that the
invention was successfully built and tested” (Final Rej. 10). In particular,
proof of actual reduction to practice requires evidence showing that the
claimed method actually existed and worked for its intended purpose. The
evidence must include test results that show the system was sufficiently
tested to prove it actually worked for its intended purpose. A general
allegation that the invention was completed prior to the date of the reference
is not sufficient. Ex parte Saunders, 1883 C.D. 23, 23 OG. 1224 (Comm’r
Pat. 1883). Further, the Declaration and exhibits must clearly explain which
facts or data applicants are relying on to show completion of the invention
5
Appeal 2016-006427
Application 13/549,047
prior to the particular date. Vague and general statements in broad terms
about what the exhibits describe, along with a general assertion that the
exhibits describe a reduction to practice, amounts essentially to mere
pleading, unsupported by proof or a showing of facts and, thus, does not
satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). Id.
Here, as the Examiner finds “[tjhere is no evidence in Exhibit B, Item
2 or any of the other exhibits that shows that the invention was properly
tested in the form of simulated output from the system or the like (see MPEP
2138.05 sections II and III)” (Ans. 3). In particular, “Appellant’s ‘simulated
input’ is merely the description of the invention and is not described within
Exhibit B, item 2 as being ‘simulated input’” wherein “Appellant does not
provide any simulated output to show an actual reduction to practice” (id.)
On this record, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants have
provided insufficient evidence to establish actual reduction to practice of the
claimed invention prior to July 23, 2009. Therefore, the Calder reference
(having an effective date of October 24, 2008) qualifies as prior art.
Rejection under 103
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
According to Appellants, “the partitions of Sinclair in FIG. 2 and FIG.
5 are defined between columns, in the horizontal direction across a table”
(App. Br. 23). Appellants contend, “Sinclair does not explicitly recite that
each dimension of the plurality of dimensions corresponds to a range of
possible values for a key within a key list defining the tuple space” (id.). In
6
Appeal 2016-006427
Application 13/549,047
particular, Appellants argue Sinclair’s “horizontal direction is fundamentally
different (and indeed is generally orthogonal to) the sense of a dimension
defined in Claim 1” (id.). Moreover, Appellants contend “Sinclair does not
result in partitions along different dimensions” (id. at 24).
Further, although Appellants concede Sinclair describes “duplicate
copies of columns C5 and C6 in order to allow these frequent queries to
access requested data through a single partition,” according to Appellants,
“as disclosed in the Application as filed . . ., the terminology ‘restricted’
refers to a transaction that accesses tuples based on their key values,” and
thus, in Sinclair, “this would correspond to transactions (such as a SELECT
statement in SQL) that access rows based on the values in a particular
column” (id. at 25). However, Appellants contend, “the partitioning scheme
of FIG. 5 of Sinclair would provide no benefit for queries of the form:
SELECT*FROM people WHERE zipcode>5000” (id.). Instead, “the
partitioning approach of FIG. 5 of Sinclair is designed to benefit transactions
of an entirely different nature” and, thus, Sinclair fails to disclose or suggest
“handling a transaction restricted along less than all of said partitioned
dimensions by accessing a single one of said partitions” (id. at 25—26, citing
claim 1).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions and
arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejections of the claims.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
7
Appeal 2016-006427
Application 13/549,047
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Although Appellants contend Sinclair’s “horizontal direction is
fundamentally different (and indeed is generally orthogonal to) the sense of
a dimension defined in Claim 1” (App. Br. 23, emphasis omitted), we note
the Specification and claims do not provide any clear definition for the term
“dimension” as recited in claim 1. Instead, an exemplary embodiment in the
Specification discloses “horizontal partitioning . . . shown in Fig. 1, in which
a 2-dimensional tuple space is partitioned along the x-dimension” (Spec. 3).
Thus, consistent with the Specification, we give the term first or second
“dimension” its broadest reasonable interpretation as an extension along any
axis (such as x or y) in a multi-dimensional space, such as a 2-dimensional
space.
Further, although Appellants contend “as disclosed in the Application
as filed . . ., the terminology ‘restricted’ refers to a transaction that accesses
tuples based on their key values,” and, thus, in Sinclair, “this would
correspond to transactions (such as a SELECT statement SQL) that access
rows based on the values in a particular column” (App. Br. 25), such
contentions directed to the Specification are not commensurate in scope with
the recited language of the claims. Similarly, as to Appellants’ contention,
“the partitioning scheme of FIG. 5 of Sinclair would provide no benefit for
queries” but instead, “the partitioning approach of FIG. 5 of Sinclair is
designed to benefit transactions of an entirely different nature” (id. 25—26,
citing claim 1), nothing in claim 1 requires a specific “benefit” as Appellants
contend.
8
Appeal 2016-006427
Application 13/549,047
Here, we agree with the Examiner’s finding Sinclair discloses “a tuple
space associated with the database system [having] a plurality of
dimensions” as recited in claim 1, since “the table is made up of various
dimensions [Figure 2]” (Final Rej. 2). That is, given the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “dimension” as discussed above, we agree that
Sinclair discloses a 2-dimensional table made up of columns and rows along
the x-dimension and y-dimension respectively (FF 1).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contention that Sinclair’s
dimension “corresponds to a range of possible values for a key within a key
list defining the tuple space” (App. Br. 23). As the Examiner points out,
Appellants are arguing the references separately when the Examiner is
relying on the combination of Sinclair and Calder, and what the combination
teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (Ans. 4—
5). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner explains, the
Examiner relies on Calder for teaching and suggesting “a dimension
corresponding to a range of key values” {id. at 5).
Although we agree with Appellants’ contention that “the partitions of
Sinclair in FIG. 2 and FIG. 5 are defined between columns, in the horizontal
direction across a table,” we do not agree that “Sinclair does not result in
partitions along different dimensions” (App. Br. 23—24 (emphasis omitted)).
In particular, as Sinclair indicates, a partition is also formed by some
combination of column segments and row segments, and thus, partitions
may be organized as groups of adjacent columns or column segments using
“vertical partitioning” or as groups of adjacent rows or row segment using
“horizontal partitioning” (FF 3). Accordingly, we are unconvinced that the
9
Appeal 2016-006427
Application 13/549,047
Examiner erred in finding Sinclair in view of Calder teaches and suggests
“partitioning a first instance of the tuple space along a first dimension” and
“partitioning a second instance of the tuple space along a second dimension”
(claim 1).
We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that “the
partitioning approach of FIG. 5 of Sinclair is designed to benefit transactions
of an entirely different nature” and, thus, Sinclair fails to disclose or suggest
“handling a transaction restricted along less than all of said partitioned
dimensions by accessing a single one of said partitions” (App. Br. 25—26,
citing claim 1). As discussed above, nothing in the claims requires the
partitioning approach to be designed for such “benefit” (id.). Further, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Sinclair discloses “only accessing a
single partition through a query for the data” (Final Rej. 3; FF 2). That is,
we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding Sinclair at least
suggests that, for multi-dimensional (two-dimensional) partitioning along
the x-dimension and the y-dimension (FF 1), a transaction restricted along
just one of the dimensions (thus, less than all of the dimensions) is handled
by accessing a single one of the partitions, as claimed (FF 2).
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, independent claims 9 and 17 not argued separately (App. Br. 29),
and the dependent claims depending respectively from claims 1, 9, and 17
(id.), over Sinclair and Calder.
V. CONCFUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12—24, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Appeal 2016-006427
Application 13/549,047
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
11