ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2021

2020003756 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2021)

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.
13/797,128 03/12/2013 Vineet Marwah 50277-4078 9501
42425 7590 10/28/2021
HICKMAN BECKER BINGHAM LEDESMA/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
DWIVEDI, MAHESH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2021 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VINEET MARWAH, TECK HUA LEE, and AMIT GANESH

___________

Appeal 2020-003756
Application 13/797,128
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-003756
Application 13/797,128

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 11–15. Claims 8 and 18 have
been cancelled. Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 have been indicated to
be allowable if rewritten in independent form. (Final Act. 2.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to row locking performed at the row level of
granularity for database data stored in columnar form. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method comprising steps of:
storing a respective plurality of rows in column-major
format in each data block of a plurality of data blocks, wherein
each data block of said plurality of data blocks includes a
respective lock vector that specifies whether each row of the
respective plurality of rows of said each data block is locked;
and
at a row-level of granularity, locking a subset of the
respective plurality of rows of a particular data block of said
plurality of data blocks, wherein locking the respective plurality
of rows of said particular data block includes:
a first transaction obtaining a lock on a first row
having at least one column value of a column in said
particular data block, wherein said first transaction

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oracle
International, Inc. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2020-003756
Application 13/797,128

3
obtaining a lock includes modify the respective lock
vector of said particular data block to indicate said first
row is locked; and
while said first transaction holds said lock on said
first row, a second transaction obtaining a lock on a
second row having at least one column value of said
column in said particular data block, wherein said second
transaction obtaining a lock includes modify said
respective lock vector of said particular data block to
indicate said second row is locked.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Zheng et al. US 6,556,994 B1 Apr. 29, 2003
Ganesh et al. US 2004/0177099 A1 Sept. 9, 2004
Cornwell et al. US 2004/0199512 A1 Oct. 7, 2004
Bhattacharjee et al. US 2004/0205066 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
Nettleton et al. US 2005/0289188 A1 Dec. 29, 2005
Chandrasekar et al. US 2011/0295817 A1 Dec. 1, 2011

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chandrasekar, Zheng, Ganesh, and Nettleton.
Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chandrasekar, Zheng, Ganesh, Nettleton, and
Bhattacharjee.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chandrasekar, Zheng, Ganesh, Nettleton, and
Cornwell.

Appeal 2020-003756
Application 13/797,128

4
OPINION
§ 103 Rejection—Chandrasekar, Zheng, Ganesh, and Nettleton
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 7; see also
Reply Br. 3) that the combination of Chandrasekar, Zheng, Ganesh, and
Nettleton would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “each data block of said plurality of data blocks
includes a respective lock vector that specifies whether each row of the
respective plurality of rows of said each data block is locked . . . wherein
locking the respective plurality of rows.”
The Examiner found that lock indicator 434 of Ganesh, which
indicates whether the row is currently write locked, corresponds to the
limitation “each data block of said plurality of data blocks includes a
respective lock vector that specifies whether each row of the respective
plurality of rows of said each data block is locked . . . wherein locking the
respective plurality of rows.” (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 10–11.)
Alternatively, the Examiner found that lock manager 230 of Nettleton,
which provides row locking, corresponds to the limitation “each data block
of said plurality of data blocks includes a respective lock vector that
specifies whether each row of the respective plurality of rows of said each
data block is locked . . . wherein locking the respective plurality of rows.”
(Ans. 10.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Ganesh relates to database management systems, and in particular to
a, “parallel recovery mechanism for recovering after a crash of an instance in
a database.” (¶ 2.) Figure 4 of Ganesh illustrates data container 400, which
includes transaction list section 402 and data section 404 (¶ 58), such that
data section 404 includes rows of data (¶ 60). Ganesh explains that “[a]
Appeal 2020-003756
Application 13/797,128

5
portion of each row is used as a write lock indicator 434 to indicate whether
the row is currently write locked.” (Id.)
Nettleton relates “to concurrent transactions in databases . . . that
facilitate concurrent transactions at the subpage level when employing a
page versioning/copying approach.” (¶ 1.) Figure 2 of Nettleton illustrates
“data base engine 200 that incorporates a lock [manager] 230 with an
allocation lock component 210, and a heap manager component 220.”
(¶ 30.) Nettleton explains that “lock manager 230 can typically assure that
concurrent transaction can modify information in a same data page, albeit at
different rows” and “lock manager 230 can grant an exclusive lock for a
particular row to a transaction, and other transactions would then be
restricted to modify such row, even though modifications to other rows can
still be permitted.” (¶ 31.)
Although the Examiner cited to either write lock indicator 434 of
Ganesh or lock manager 230 of Nettleton, the Examiner has provided
insufficient evidence to support a finding that the references teach the
limitation “each data block of said plurality of data blocks includes a
respective lock vector that specifies whether each row of the respective
plurality of rows of said each data block is locked . . . wherein locking the
respective plurality of rows.”
In particular, Ganesh explains that “write lock indicator 434 . . . indicate[s]
whether the row is currently write locked” (i.e., a single row), rather than a
lock vector for “locking the respective plurality of rows,” as recited in
claim 1. In addition, Nettleton explains that “lock manager 230 can grant an
exclusive lock for a particular row to a transaction” (i.e., a single row),
Appeal 2020-003756
Application 13/797,128

6
rather than a lock vector for “locking the respective plurality of rows,” as
recited in claim 1.
On this record, neither Ganesh nor Nettleton teaches the limitation
“each data block of said plurality of data blocks includes a respective lock
vector that specifies whether each row of the respective plurality of rows of
said each data block is locked . . . wherein locking the respective plurality of
rows.” Moreover, the Examiner’s application of Chandrasekar and Zheng
does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Ganesh and Nettleton.
Accordingly, we are persuaded of Appellant’s arguments, as follows:
However, unlike the lock vector as claimed, the write
lock indicator 134 only indicates the lock status of one row. As
shown in FIG. 4 in Ganish [sic], there is a separate write lock
indicator 434 in each row 404. “A portion of each row [i.e.
write lock indicator 434] is used as a write lock indicator 434 to
indicate whether the row is currently write locked.”
(Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis and citation omitted).)
Even assuming Nettleton teaches a data structure that
indicates a row is locked, nothing in the above quoted passage
[of paragraph 31] or any other passage in Nettleton teaches a
data structure that indicates which of multiple rows in a data
block are locked much less that such a data structure is in a data
block, as claimed for the lock vector.
(Reply Br. 3.)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 2 depends from claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1.
Independent claim 11 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 11, as well
Appeal 2020-003756
Application 13/797,128

7
as dependent claim 12, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.

§ 103 Rejection—Chandrasekar, Zheng, Ganesh, Nettleton, and
Bhattacharjee
Claims 5 and 15 depend from independent claims 1 and 11. The
Examiner cited to Bhattacharjee for teaching the additional features of
claims 5 and 15. (Final Act. 6–7.) However, the Examiner’s application of
Bhattacharjee does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Chandrasekar,
Zheng, Ganesh, and Nettleton.

§ 103 Rejection—Chandrasekar, Zheng, Ganesh, Nettleton, and Cornwell
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 depend from independent claims 1 and 11.
The Examiner cited to Cornwell for teaching the additional features of
claims 3, 4, 13, and 14. (Final Act. 7–8.) However, the Examiner’s
application of Cornwell does not cure the above noted deficiencies of
Chandrasekar, Zheng, Ganesh, and Nettleton.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5 and 11–15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

DECISION
Appeal 2020-003756
Application 13/797,128

8
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 11, 12 103(a) Chandrasekar,
Zheng, Ganesh,
Nettleton
1, 2, 11, 12
5, 15 103(a) Chandrasekar,
Zheng, Ganesh,
Nettleton,
Bhattacharjee
5, 15
3, 4, 13, 14 103(a) Chandrasekar,
Zheng, Ganesh,
Nettleton,
Cornwell
3, 4, 13, 14
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 11–15

REVERSED