Teradata US, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 9, 20212019006977 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation