Teradata US, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 26, 2021

2020005426 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 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.
15/336,063 10/27/2016 Rui Zhang DN14-1014 3707
26890 7590 11/26/2021
Randy Campbell
TERADATA US, INC.
P.O. Box 190
Englewood, OH 45322
EXAMINER
SHAH, VAISHALI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2021 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 RUI ZHANG, SANJAY NAIR, PAUL LAURENCE SINCLAIR,
and MAMATHA GOVIND RAO
___________

Appeal 2020-005426
Application 15/336,063
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3–7, 9–11, 13–17, 19, and 20, all of the pending
claims. Appeal Br. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Teradata US, Incorporated.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
March 25, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br., filed July 15, 2020); the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed October 21, 2019), and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 15, 2020); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed
October 27, 2016). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and
Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal 2020-005426
Application 15/336,063

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed device relates to database storage systems and “loading
data into column-partitioned database tables.” Abstract. As noted above,
claims 1, 3–7, 9–11, 13–17, 19, and 20 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 11, and 17
are independent. Appeal Br. 12 (claim 1), 13 (claim 7), 14 (claim 11), 15–
16 (Claim17) (Claims App.). Claims 3–6 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 1, claims 9 and 10 depend directly from claim 7, claims 13–16 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 11, and claims 19 and depend directly from
claim 17. Id. at 12–16.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative.
1. In a database system including a processor and data storage
devices, said database system employing a column-oriented
storage model whereby data is saved within column-partitioned
database tables, a method of loading data into a column-
partitioned database table, the method comprising:
reading, by a processor, rows from a row-oriented source
table,
extracting, by said processor, individual column data
values from said rows,
writing, by said processor, said column data values in a
column-first order to a buffer memory;
allocating, by said processor, said column data values
contained within said buffer memory to column containers;
determining, by said processor, an optimized sequence in
which said column containers are to be written to said column-
partitioned database table; and
writing, by said processor, said column containers to said
column-partitioned database table in accordance with said
optimized sequence.
Appeal 2020-005426
Application 15/336,063

3

Id. at 12 (emphases added). Each of independent claims 7, 11, and 17
recites limitations corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 1. Id.
at 13–16.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Reference Published
Bhide US 2013/0073515 A1 Mar. 21, 2013
Kozina US 2014/0114907 A1 Apr. 24, 2014
Mueller US 2015/0178305 A1 June 25, 2015
Alvey US 2015/0213071 A1 July 30, 2015
Hu US 2016/0078079 A1 Mar. 17, 2016
The Examiner rejects:
a. claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Bhide and Hu (Final Act. 4–19);
b. claims 3–5, 9, 13–15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Bhide, Hu, and Mueller (id. at 19–
22);
c. claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Bhide, Hu, and Alvey (id. at 22–23); and
d. claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Bhide, Hu, and Kozina (id. at 23–25).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-005426
Application 15/336,063

4

(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 7–11; Ans. 2–3); so do we. We
address the rejections below.
ANALYSIS
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Bhide and Hu. Final Act. 4–7. In particular, the
Examiner finds Bhide’s disclosure of a column based data transfer in extract,
transform, and load (ETL) systems teaches or suggests the majority of the
limitations recited in claim 1. Id. at 4–6 (citing Bhide ¶¶ 2, 4, 15, 37, 43, 49,
50, 51, 54, 54, 60; Fig. 4 (item 404)). The Examiner finds, however, “Bhide
does not explicitly teach to [sic] a buffer memory; within said buffer
memory; determining, . . . an optimized sequence in which; in accordance
with said optimized sequence,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 6.
Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Hsu’s disclosure of updating a
column-store database including establishing a row-store database teaches or
suggests these missing limitations. Id. at 6–7 (citing Hsu, ¶¶ 36, 54, 84, 88).
In particular, the Examiner finds Hu teaches:
determining, . . . (see Hu, [0088] “the interactions
arranged in time sequence”) an optimized (see Hu, [0054]
“optimizer 120 is configured for importing the targeted data from
the row store database 130”) sequence in which (see Hu, [0088]
“the interactions arranged in time sequence”; [0084] “sequence
diagram ... implemented for dynamically and adaptively building
a column store database”).
in accordance with said optimized (see Hu, [0054]
“optimizer 120 is configured for importing the targeted data from
the row store database 130”) sequence (see Hu, [0088] “the
interactions arranged in time sequence”; [0084] “sequence
Appeal 2020-005426
Application 15/336,063

5

diagram ... implemented for dynamically and adaptively building
a column store database”).
Id. at 7 (bolding and bracketed material in original).4 The Examiner
explains
Hu . . . teaches the concept of a query manager/optimizer in
[0054] for importing the targeted data from the row store
database. To a person of ordinary skill in the art, “writing data”
may be reasonably interpreted as “importing the targeted data”.
[The] Hu reference also mentions in [0084] “sequence diagram
. . . implemented for dynamically and adaptively building a
column store database” wherein a specific sequence diagram is
generated to determine how a specific column store database can
be generated. Thus, Hu reference teaches the claim limitation
“determining, . . . an optimized sequence” for a specific writing
process.
Id. at 3.
Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show that Hsu teaches the
disputed limitations of (i) “determining, by said processor, an optimized
sequence in which said column containers are to be written to said column-
partitioned database table” and (ii) “writing, by said processor, said column
containers to said column-partitioned database table within a data storage
device in accordance with said optimized sequence.” Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant argues
Paragraph [0088] of Hu et al. describes interactions arranged in
time sequence among various components of a hybrid database
system when executing an insert statement for inserting a new
row into an Employee table of a row store database. Hu et al.

4 In connection with the Examiner’s citation to paragraph 84 of Hu for
teaching the sequence portion of the limitation “in accordance with said
optimized sequence,” we note the language quoted by the Examiner appears
at paragraph 93 of Hsu, not paragraph 84 as indicated. We consider the
mistaken pincite to be harmless clerical error.
Appeal 2020-005426
Application 15/336,063

6

discusses arranging interactions in a time sequence, not in an
optimized sequence. Hu et al. incudes no discussion concerning
an optimized sequence for performing tasks. It is not seen that
Hu et al.’s time sequence can be equated to the optimized
sequence recited in the independent claim 1 of the present
application.
Id. at 10.
The Examiner responds, finding “to a person of ordinary skill in the
art [an] ‘optimized sequence’ may be reasonably interpreted as a specific
form of sequence for writing data.” Ans. 4. The Examiner notes the claims
“do not provide further clarification on how an optimized sequence is
defined or what kind of sequence helps with the optimization process.” Id.
The Examiner concludes, “based on broadest reasonable interpretation and
in light of specification [an] ‘optimized sequence’ may be reasonably
interpreted as a specific sequence that can eventually help with the
optimization process in writing.” Id. Based on this claim interpretation, the
Examiner finds Hu teaches the disputed optimization as follows:
[The] Hu reference teaches the overall concept of fetching
the records in row format and then loading those records into the
column store database in [0071]. Hu reference in [0054] teaches
the concept of the targeted data that is imported to the column
store database and a query manager/optimizer being
implemented for importing the targeted data from the row store
database. Thus there is an optimizer involved to support the
writing or importing of data into the column store database. Hu
also teaches a specific time sequence in [0088] by which the
interactions occur during the migration process to column store
database. The interactions arranged in a specific time sequence
are optimal since this arrangement may assist with data
consistency during the migration process. The current claim
language of independent claims (1, 7, 11 and 17), [does] not
provide further clarification on how an optimized sequence is
defined, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation and in
Appeal 2020-005426
Application 15/336,063

7

light of specification, an “optimized sequence” may be
reasonably interpreted as a time sequence. Thus, Hu teaches the
claim limitation “determining, an optimized sequence” since the
interactions arranged in a specific time sequence are optimal as
they assist with data consistency during the migration process.
Id. at 5.
Appellant replies, contending the record does not support the
Examiner’s position, arguing Hu does not describe any benefits achieved by
time sequencing or otherwise disclose optimizing writing data to a database
table. Reply Br. 2–3.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions. In particular, the
Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to show either
that Hu’s disclosure of (i) a query manager/optimizer or (ii) time sequencing
of interactions during a migration process provides an optimized sequence
for writing column containers to a database table.
We interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of
the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The broadest reasonable interpretation is
assessed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention. Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364. In determining the
broadest reasonable interpretation, it can be appropriate to consult a
dictionary definition for guidance. Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d
1056, 1062–63 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2020-005426
Application 15/336,063

8

Appellant’s Specification does not provide a definition for what is
meant by “optimized” as used in the phrase “an optimized sequence in
which said column containers are to be written to said column-partitioned
database table.” However, the Specification discloses “[t]he techniques
discussed below provide various optimizations that further improve the
efficiency of the columnar-table data loading operation.” Spec. ¶ 47
(emphasis added). Furthermore, an accepted dictionary definition of
optimize is “to make as perfect, effective, or functional as possible.”5 Thus,
we understand the phrase “determining . . . an optimized sequence in which
said column containers are to be written to said column-partitioned database
table,” as used in claim 1, requires determining a sequence that results in a
more efficient process of writing column containers to a column-partitioned
database table.
Hu discloses “a data importer 127 of the query manager/optimizer 120
is configured for importing the targeted data from the row store database
130, in the corresponding temporal state, to enhance the covered range for
the attribute vector in order to encompass the queried range.” Hu ¶ 54
(emphasis added). That is, Hu discloses an enhancement to importing data.
However, the disputed limitation recites writing, not importing data. On the
record before us, the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence
supporting a finding that optimizing the importing of data results in a more
effective or more efficient process of writing column containers to the
database. Likewise, the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence
supporting a finding that Hu’s disclosure of time sequencing interactions

5 MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, 10TH EDITION, p. 816
(Merriam-Webster) (1997).
Appeal 2020-005426
Application 15/336,063

9

during a migration process results in a more efficient process of writing
column containers to the column-partitioned database table.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that Hu fails to teach or suggest
the optimized sequence recited by the disputed limitations of claim 1.
Because we agree with at least one of the Appellant’s contentions of
error, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other contentions.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1,
or the rejection of independent claims 7, 11, and 17, which include language
similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. Nor do we sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 3–6, 9, 10, 13–16, 19, and 20, each of which stands
with its respective base claim.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
a. claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Bhide and Hu;
b. claims 3–5, 9, 13–15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Bhide, Hu, and Mueller;
c. claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Bhide, Hu, and Alvey; and
d. claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Bhide, Hu, and Kozina.
Appeal 2020-005426
Application 15/336,063

10

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 11, 17 103 Bhide, Hu 1, 7, 11, 17
3–5, 9, 13–
15, 19
103 Bhide, Hu, Mueller 3–5, 9, 13–
15, 19
6, 16 103 Bhide, Hu, Alvey 6, 16
10, 20 103 Bhide, Hu, Kozina 10, 20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–7, 9–
11, 13–17,
19, 20

REVERSED