Ex Parte Wong

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12030393 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/030,393 02/13/2008 Daniel ManHung Wong
51067 7590 03/02/2016
PVF -- ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
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.
OR06-17001 1636
EXAMINER
BETIT, JACOB F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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):
j eannie@parklegal.com
syadmin@parklegal.com
trisha@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL MANHUNG WONG
Appeal2013-010048
Application 12/030393
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COUTENA Y III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16,
and 18-24. Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 have been canceled. (Br. 3.) 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed Feb. 13, 2008 and
Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed Feb. 7, 2013. We also refer to the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 7, 2013, and Final Office Action (Final
Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Oct. 9, 2012.
Appeal2013-010048
Application 12/030,393
Appellant's Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns database updating
techniques, in particular, apparatus, computer-readable storage media, and
methods for performing multi-stage table updates. The techniques include
determining whether the storage space necessary for storing a transaction log
associated with a table update query exceeds a threshold, and if so, dividing
the query into sub-queries. (Spec. i-fi-f l, 4--12; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for performing database table
updates, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computer, a query for updating a table in
a database;
responsive to a storage space needed for storing a
transaction log associated with the query exceeding a pre-
determined threshold, dividing the query into a set of sub-
queries by:
identifying partitions in the table; and
for each partition:
determining if a storage space needed for
storing a transaction log associated with a sub-query
corresponding to the partition exceeds the pre-determined
threshold;
if not, processing the sub-query
corresponding to the partition; and
if so, dividing the partition into multiple
subsets such that a storage space needed for storing a
2
Appeal2013-010048
Application 12/030,393
transaction log associated with each sub-query corresponding to
a subset is less than the pre-determined threshold.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fell et al. (US
2008/0077566 Al; Mar. 27, 2008) and Von Kaenel et al. (US 2004/0117358
Al; June 17, 2004).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 9, 13, 18, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fell, Von Kaenel, and Parson
(US 2004/0083347 Al; Apr. 29, 2004).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fell, Von Kaenel, and Miyashita et al. (US
2009/0307275 Al; Dec. 10, 2009).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant's
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that Fell and Von Kaenel would
have collectively taught or suggested "responsive to a storage space needed
for storing a transaction log associated with the query exceeding a pre-
determined threshold" (hereinafter "disputed limitations"), within the
meaning of Appellant's claim 1, and the commensurate limitations of claims
10 and 19?
3
Appeal2013-010048
Application 12/030,393
ANALYSIS
The Examiner provides the same basis for rejecting independent
claims 1, 10, and 19 (Final Act. 3-5, 7; Ans. 3---6), and rejects representative
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Fell and Von
Kaenel. (Final Act. 3-5.) Appellant contends that the combination of Fell
and Von Kaenel does not teach or suggest the disputed features of
representative claim 1. (Br. 11-18.) Specifically, Appellant contends, inter
alia, that "Fell at most discloses determining whether data resulting from
the query (or the data needed to be returned to the request client) is larger
than the determined amount, and dividing the data into chunks for efficient
transmission" (Br. 18) and "the transaction log disclose[ d] in Kaenel is
different from the database transaction log that associated with the query for
updating a table in the database" (Br. 16).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown
(Ans. 3---6; Final Act. 3-5, 7), nor do we find, that the combination of Fell
and Von Kaenel teaches the disputed claim limitations. Although Fell may
be interpreted to describe subdividing a query (i-f 4 7) and Von Kaenel may
be interpreted to describe a transaction log (i-f l 043), the Examiner fails to
explain how these disparate teachings fit together-why or how one of
ordinary skill in the art would combine the references to teach or suggest
subdividing a query base on exceeding the storage space for an associated
transaction log. The Examiner, improperly, picks disparate pieces of the
Fell and Von Kaenel references while using Appellant's claim as a road map
and filling in the gaps with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art
(see, e.g., Ans. 5 - "Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the
ordinary skilled in the art" ... to modify Fell by applying 'tracking, and
4
Appeal2013-010048
Application 12/030,393
history log and activity history' system of Von Kaenel .... "). The record
indicates that the Examiner's rejections are based upon impermissible
hindsight in view of Appellant's disclosure. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCP A 1967) ("A rejection based on section 103 clearly must
rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight
reconstruction of the invention from the prior art.").
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in concluding Fell and Von Kaenel teach the disputed
limitations of Appellant's claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 19 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 3, 6, 7, 12, 15, and 16 depend
on claims 1 and 10, respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 19.
With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 4, 9,
13, 18, and 20-24, rejected as obvious over Fell and Von Kaenel as well as
Parson or Miyashita, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections for
the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 (supra). The Examiner
does not sufficiently explain how Fell and Von Kaenel determine whether
the storage space necessary for storing a transaction log associated with a
table update query exceeds a threshold, and if so, dividing the query into
sub-queries.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred, as the
analysis in the Examiner's rejection is not sufficient to show that claims 1, 3,
4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18-24 are unpatentable without further
explanation.
5
Appeal2013-010048
Application 12/030,393
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3,
4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12,
13, 15, 16, and 18-24.
REVERSED
6