Ex Parte Bestgen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

11962980 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111962,980 12/21/2007
130683 7590 03/17/2016
Middleton Reutlinger (IBMP)
401 S. 4th Street, Suite 2600
Louisville, KY 40202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Joseph Bestgen
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.
ROC920070123US 1 9149
EXAMINER
DAV ANLOU, SOHEILA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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):
usptomail@middletonlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte ROBERT JOSEPH BESTGEN,
DAVID GLENN CARLSON, ROBERT VICTOR DOWNER,
and SHANTAN KETHIREDDY
Appeal2014-002703
Application 11/962,980
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-25, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is International Business
Machines Corp. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-002703
Application 11/962,980
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed "invention relates to computers and data
processing, and more particularly databases and database queries." (Spec.
i-f 1.) Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method of performing a query of a database, the method
compnsmg:
receiving a database query, the database query including first
and second operations respectively configured to generate first and
second disjoint results sets from a dataspace;
analyzing the database query to identify a set of attributes
from the dataspace that are used by at least one of the first and
second operations in the database query; and
during execution of the database query, iteratively processing
a plurality of records from the dataspace in a single pass, including,
for each of the plurality of records, processing such record by
retrieving the plurality of attributes for such record from the
dataspace and performing each of the first and second operations on
the record using the retrieved attributes for such record to build the
first and second disjoint results sets.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-20, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Raz (US 2006/0288045 Al; Dec. 21,
2006) and Trotta (US 2003/0023620 Al; Jan. 30, 2003). (See Final Act 4--
15.)
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Raz, Trotta, and Mamou et al. (US
2006/0069717 Al; Mar. 30, 2006; hereinafter "Mamou"). (See Final Act.
15-17.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed July 3, 2013; "Reply Br." filed Dec. 17, 2013) and the
2
Appeal2014-002703
Application 11/962,980
Specification ("Spec." filed Dec. 21, 2007) for the positions of Appellants
and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed Mar. 5, 2013 and Answer
("Ans." mailed Oct. 17, 2013) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions
of the Examiner.
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants' contentions is as
follows: 2 Does the combination of Raz and Trotta, and in particular does
Trotta, teach or suggest
during execution of the database query, iteratively processing a
plurality of records from the dataspace in a single pass,
including, for each of the plurality of records, processing such
record by retrieving the plurality of attributes for such record
from the dataspace and performing each of the first and second
operations on the record using the retrieved attributes for such
record to build the first and second disjoint results sets
(hereinafter the "iteratively processing limitation"), as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Trotta teaches the iteratively processing limitation
of claim 1. (Final Act. 6 (citing Trotta i-f 72); see also Ans. 2-7 (additionally
citing Trotta i-fi-1 58, 71 ). ) The Examiner explains
Trotta teaches the building of procedure which involves the
performing a full table scan because the matching criteria in the
prior art suggest that it's checking every data and outputting what
matched, so while it doesn't says [sic] it did a full table scan it
has to analyze all of the data according to the match definitions
and gathering the matched variables.
2 Appellants' contentions present additional issues. Because the identified
issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
3
Appeal2014-002703
Application 11/962,980
(Ans. 4.)
Appellants contend that
nowhere in [Trotta's] media identification process ... is there a
single pass performed through a dataspace, where for each record
processed in that single pass two different operations are
performed on a plurality of attributes from the record to build
two different disjoint results sets, as is required by claim 1.
(App. Br. 11 (referring to Trotta i-fi-161-76, Fig. 6).) Appellants further
contend "Trotter [sic] ... altogether avoids performing any actions that
could be analogized to first and second operations, as well as generating
multiple results sets, since Trotter [sic] is directed to performing a search
through an index to identify a matching primary key." (Id.)
We agree with Appellants for the reasons stated by Appellants. Even
agreeing with the Examiner, arguendo and without deciding, that Trotta
teaches "checking every data and outputting what matched," Trotta teaches
doing so to build "special match definition tables . . . pre-generated within
the data set" (Trotta i1 72), and not during execution of the database query, as
recited in claim 1. Trotta teaches that the database query is executed against
the match definition tables "via examination of only the primary key of the
table" (id. (emphasis added)).
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that
[claim 1] recite[s] in part that the iterative processing of the
plurality of records from the dataspace in a single pass is
performed "during execution of the database query," and
includes processing each record by "retrieving [a] plurality of
attributes for such record from the dataspace and performing
each of . . . first and second operations on the record using the
retrieved attributes for such record to build ... first and second
disjoint results sets." The Examiner, on the other hand, appears
to be relying on operations in Trotta that either occur ( 1) prior to
4
Appeal2014-002703
Application 11/962,980
execution of a database query (the generation of match definition
tables used by the pre-built procedure) or (2) outside of a
database system.
(Reply Br. 4 (ellipses in original).)
Appellants have demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1, independent claims
10 and 18, which recite limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1
and which were rejected on substantially the same bases as claim 1 (see
Final Act. 10, 12-13), and claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-25, which depend
from, and incorporate the limitations of, claims 1, 10, and 18 respectively.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-25 is reversed.
REVERSED
5