Teradata US, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2021

2019006977 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 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.
14/263,439 04/28/2014 Gregory Howard Milby 13-1069 (2704.165US1) 8337
26890 7590 03/09/2021
Randy Campbell
TERADATA US, INC.
P.O. Box 190
Englewood, OH 45322
EXAMINER
BROOKS, DAVID T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2021 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):
michelle.boldman@teradata.com
randy.campbell@teradata.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY HOWARD MILBY
Appeal 2019-006977
Application 14/263,439
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 7–9, 18, and 20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 Teradata US,
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006977
Application 14/263,439

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to
Streaming data is populated to an in-memory data table
and a continuous query is executed against an in-memory data
table using a database interface to perform analytical operations
on the populated in-memory data table. Results from the
analytical operations performed are streamed to consuming
applications.
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
defining a Streaming Data Table (SDT), said SDT serving
as a source for streaming data that is fed into a continuous query
application, said defining including receiving a Data Definition
Language (DDL) statement for defining an instance of the SDT,
and identifying:
a first extended Structure Query Language (SQL)
statement within the DDL statement as a size for housing
streaming data in memory;
a second extended SQL statement within the DDL
statement as a total number of processing units in a parallel
processing database environment for simultaneously accessing
the instance and other instances of the SDT; and
a third extended SQL statement within the DDL statement
as a total size for each of the instance and other instances in the
memory;
accessing a database interface to create an instance of the
SDT in the memory;
receiving streaming data from at least one streaming
source over a network; and
populating the streaming data into the instance of the SDT
through the database interface.

Appeal 2019-006977
Application 14/263,439

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Krishnamurthy US 2012/0124031 A1 May 17, 2012
Oracle Database, SQL Language Reference,
11g Release 1(11.1) August 2010
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7–9, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. as
unpatentable over Krishnamurthy and Oracle Database SQL Language
Reference. Appeal Br. 5.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the cited combination of Krishnamurthy and
Oracle Database do not teach or suggest an “an in-memory streaming data
table” where the “streaming data table serving as a source for streaming data
that is fed into a continuous query application.” Appeal Br. 6. Namely,
Appellant contends that Krishnamurthy describes streaming data and
production of streams, but not streaming data tables using DDL create
statements. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further asserts that the Examiner’s
determination that Krishnamurthy’s database objects “imply Applicant's
streaming data table” is insufficient. According to Appellant, “[n]one of [the
cited portions of Krishnamurthy] are seen to directly equate any structure
described in Krishnamurthy with a streaming data [table] as described in the
present application.” Reply Br 4.
We find this argument unpersuasive. To establish prima facie
obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught
or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA
Appeal 2019-006977
Application 14/263,439

4
1974). As the Examiner points out, Krishnamurthy teaches a Streaming
Relational Database Management System (SRDBMS) that “integrates the
world of streams with those of relations,” including “the ability to ‘manage
and populate streams, tables, and archived stream histories” and “evaluat[e]
[] continuous queries on streams and tables.” Ans. 4. In other words,
Krishnamurthy’s SRDBMS “extends a traditional RDBMS would seem then
to mirror the table-based relations of traditional RDBMS in the same form
(i.e. a table).” Ans. 4.
More specifically, the Examiner explains,
Krishnamurthy in paragraph [0030]-[0032] and [0035]
makes this point clear explaining that such objects created within
the SRDBMS include those classified as a "derived stream" or
“produced stream” based on how they are populated. Then,
explicitly as in [0031] “a produced steam may be one of multiple
types of database objects.” (Emphasis Added). Krishnamurthy
as above teaches such database objects include a table.
Krishnamurthy also describes such produced stream as a “view”,
which is also a form of a table as a virtual table, and when a view
contains streaming data such would be a streaming data table as
well. Both of these then are “streaming data tables” and these
produced streams are explicitly described as being created using
DDL statements through SQL as at [0006], [0032], and [0047]-
[0061].
Ans. 5–6. Thus, the cited portions of Krishnamurthy together at least
suggest the claimed streaming data table. Appellant’s general assertion that
Krishnamurthy structures do not “directly equate” to the claimed streaming
data table is insufficient to identify error in the Examiner’s determination.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we affirmed the rejection
of claims 1, 7–9, 18, and 20 as unpatentable over Krishnamurthy and Oracle
Database.
Appeal 2019-006977
Application 14/263,439

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7–9, 18, and 20 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7–9, 18,
20
103 Krishnamurthy,
Oracle Database
SQL Language
Reference
1, 7–9, 18,
20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED