Ex Parte Ganesh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 2, 2013

10866433 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2013)

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.
10/866,433 06/10/2004 Amit Ganesh 50277-2243 1718
42425 7590 04/03/2013
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
REYES, MARIELA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AMIT GANESH, BIPUL SINHA, and SRINIVAS VEMURI
____________

Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.

QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

1 Oracle International Corporation is the real party in interest.
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal involves database technology. Spec.
¶ [0002].2 According to the Abstract, “[m]odifications to a database can
change the result of a query and therefore what the content of such a body of
data, such as a result set, should be.” Spec. ¶ [0112]. Appellants’ claims are
directed to “detecting changes to the result of a query expression that may be
computed by a database server.” Br., Claim Appendix ¶ 1. 3 Further details
of the appealed subject matter are recited in illustrative independent claim 1,
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
1. A computer-implemented method for detecting changes
to the result of a query expression that may be computed by a
database server, comprising:
said database server generating at least one filter condition
that is used to detect changes to a database that change the
result of the query expression;
wherein said at least one filter condition specifies a
condition that is based on at least one value stored in a database
object, in the database, to which said query expression requires
access; and
wherein the step of said database server generating said at
least one filter condition includes said database server accessing
said database object to extract said at least one value.

2 References to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) are directed to the
specification filed on June 10, 2004 and its subsequent modification filed on
October 23, 2006, as appropriate.
3References to the Appeal Brief (“Br.”) are directed to Appellants’
Appeal Brief filed June 15, 2009.
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

3

As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies on the following references at pages 3 to 13 of the Answer:4
Risch US 5,133,075 July 21, 1992
Bailis US 5,999,946 Dec. 7, 1999
Langseth US 6,671,715 B1 Dec. 30, 2003
Tow US 2004/0064441 A1 Apr. 1, 2004
Appellants seek review of the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1, 3, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Bailis. Ans. 3-4.
2. Claims 2, 7, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bailis in view of Langseth. Ans. 4-5.
3. Claims 4, 9, 13, 17, 22, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bailis in view of Risch. Ans. 5-8.
4. Claims 5, 6, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bailis in view of Risch and Tow. Ans. 8-9.
5. Claims 8-13 and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bailis, Langseth, Risch, and Tow. Ans. 9-13.
ISSUES
a) Has the Examiner incorrectly found that Bailis discloses “[a]
database server generating at least one filter condition that is used
to detect changes to a database that change the result of the query
expression,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 5-6)?

4 References to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) are directed to the
Answer mailed on October 30, 2009.
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

4

b) Has the Examiner incorrectly found that Bailis discloses
“extracting said values during execution of [an] execution plan,” as
recited in claims 3 and 16 (Br. 6-7)?
c) Has the Examiner incorrectly determined that the combination of
Bailis and Langseth teaches or suggests the limitation in claim 2,
that “at least one value is not explicitly specified by said query
expression” (Br. 7-8)?
d) Has the Examiner incorrectly determined that the combination of
Bailis and Langseth teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 7
because neither of these references teaches that a “query
expression requires access to multiple tables,” and “at least one
filter condition specifies a condition that is based on at least one
value from at least one table of said multiple tables.” (Br. 8)?
e) Has the Examiner incorrectly rejected claim 12 because Risch does
not disclose all the steps recited therein (Br. 9)?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s final rejection in light of
Appellants’ contentions. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s
response to Appellants’ arguments. We adopt as our own (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
arguments for emphasis.
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

5

Claims 1and 145
Appellants contend that Bailis does not describe “said database server
generating at least one filter condition that is used to detect changes to a
database that change the result of the query expression,” as recited in claim 1
Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants argue that the Bailis reference does not
describe how such detection is to be done, and thus Bailis fails to disclose
the specific feature for detecting changes to the result of a query expression,
as required by claim 1. Id. In Appellants’ view, the portion of Bailis on
which the Examiner relies does not describe the generation of any filter
conditions. Id. (referring to Bailis, col. 4, ll. 34-35). Further, Appellants
reason that the Examiner incorrectly equates the monitoring of a “live
query” as taught in Bailis to generating the filter condition, as recited in
claim 1. Id. The disclosed monitoring, according to Appellants, is but an

5 We note that the instant appeal was filed prior to the Supreme Court’s
opinion in Bilski v Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (June 28, 2010). In the event of
further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to evaluate claims 14-26 for
compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, these claims could be
broadly construed to cover forms of non-transitory tangible media and
transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary
meaning of computer readable media, particularly where Appellants’
Specification defines the term “computer-readable medium” to include
transmission media. Spec. ¶ [0104]. As such, we leave it to the Examiner to
evaluate and reject claims 14-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-
statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2007); and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Interim Examination
Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35U.S.C. § 101,
at 2 (Aug. 2009), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/2009-08-5_interim_101_
instructions.pdf (emphases omitted); see also David J.
Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off.
Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

6

“end goal” and, Bailis, in contrast to the language in claim 1, fails to
describe the specific step of generating at least one filter condition. Id.
The Examiner responds that the portion relied on in Bailis discloses a
client submitting a live query, the query being executed, and the results
being forwarded to the user. Ans. 14. The Examiner finds that Bailis
discloses generating a filter condition by disclosing that the database
monitors the live query to detect changes to the query results. Id. Further,
the Examiner finds that Bailis teaches the claimed filter condition as being
the information derived from the live query, where the information includes
the returned results and the results’ values that the database uses to monitor
the changes. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Bailis discloses the disputed claim
limitation. Bailis teaches that the database detects changes in the data that
affect query results. See Bailis, fig.4. Further, Bailis states that “[s]hould
the database change to remove or add records to those that originally met the
criteria of the query, the database informs the client of the change.” Bailis,
col. 4, ll. 41-43 (emphasis added). As such, we find that Bailis teaches
detecting a change of the query results by, at a minimum, detecting if added
or removed records meet the original criteria of the live query, where the
criteria of the live query and the detection of added/deleted rows are the
claimed “filter condition.” Therefore, the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions – that monitoring the live query in Bailis meets the disputed
claim limitation – are not in error.
Furthermore, the disputed claim limitation merely recites that the
database server generates “at least one filter condition that is used to detect
changes to a database that change the result of the query expression.”
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

7

Appellants’ objection to the Examiner’s rejection on the basis that Bailis
does not describe additional or specific steps is unpersuasive. Appellants’
argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, as no additional
specific steps are called for under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the disputed claim language.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
independent claim 1 as being anticipated by Bailis. Because claims 1 and 14
stand or fall together (Br. 9), and for the same reasons as stated above, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 14 as anticipated by Bailis.
Claims 3 and 16
Appellants contend that Bailis fails to disclose that “the values in the
filter conditions that are used to detect database changes be extracted during
an execution plan,” as required by claim 3. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants
argue that although Bailis discloses executing the live query, it does not
disclose an “execution plan.” Br. 7. Further, Appellants argue that even if
Bailis inherently taught an “execution plan,” Bailis fails to disclose that,
during the execution of that plan, “values are extracted for filter conditions
that are used for detecting database changes, as claimed.” Id.
However, we are not persuaded that the Examiner incorrectly found
that Bailis describes the disputed claim limitation. As the Examiner notes,
Bailis discloses the claimed execution plan because it is inherent that, to
execute a query, an execution plan has to be followed in order to know what
operations to execute first. Ans. 14. This fact finding is reasonable and
remains unrebutted by Appellants as they did not file a reply brief.
Furthermore, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that during the
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

8

execution of the plan in Bailis, values that match the criteria of the query are
extracted by producing the results of the query, and that, based on the
results, changes in the database that affect the query results are detected.
Ans. 14.
For all these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bailis. Because claims 3 and 16
stand or fall together (Br. 9), and for the same reasons as stated above, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 16 as anticipated by Bailis.
Claim 2
Appellants contend that the combination of Bailis and Langseth fails
to teach or suggest that “values of the filter conditions are not explicitly
specified by the query,” as required by claim 2. Br. 7. Specifically,
Appellants argue the Examiner’s finding that Langseth teaches this
limitation is incorrect, because a value of 10% change in a stock portfolio, as
taught in Langseth, is not used to detect changes in any underlying data. Br.
7. According to Appellants, the 10% stock portfolio change value is used to
evaluate how big of a change has been experienced by the overall stock
portfolio, and not to detect changes to the database that change the query
results. Id.
The Examiner responds that Langseth teaches a filter condition by
disclosing the creation of a user alert that requires a 10% change of the stock
portfolio value. Ans. 15. The Examiner points to the stock quotes as the
values to monitor, which are values not explicitly specified in the query. Id.
When the stock quotes (values) change, the user’s alert (query or filter
condition) will be affected. Id.
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

9

We agree with the Examiner that Langseth teaches that a value “is not
explicitly specified by said query expression,” as recited in claim 2. The
Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness of this claim based
on the primary teaching of values in Bailis combined with the teaching in
Langseth that at least one value (stock quote) is not specified by the user in
the query. See Ans. 4-5. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the
Examiner points out that the values required by claim 2 are taught by the
stock prices in Langseth, not the 10% change condition in the user alert. See
Ans. 15. As such, Appellants’ arguments attempting to distinguish the
setting of a 10% value in Langseth from the claimed “value” is unpersuasive
because the arguments do not address the prima face case of obviousness
established by the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 2 as
being unpatentable over Bailis in view of Langseth.
Claim 7
Appellants contend that the Examiner improperly rejects claim 7
because the combination of Bailis and Langseth fails to teach or suggest
retrieving the claimed values from a database object. Br. 8. The Examiner
responds that both Bailis and Langseth disclose extracting values from a
database. Ans. 15. The Examiner finds that Langseth inherently stores the
stock quotes in a database and that Bailis extracts query results and values
from a database. Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. In particular,
we find that both Bailis and Langseth involve database systems. See Bailis,
Abstract (“The database engine allows live queries, which automatically
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

10

update querying clients as pertinent data changes.”); Langseth, Abstract
(“[C]content may be generated by an OLAP based channel database
system . . . .”). Furthermore, the Examiner’s finding – that Langseth
inherently stores stock quotes in a database – is reasonable and remains
unrebutted by Appellants. As noted above, Appellants’ did not file a reply
brief. Finally, to the extent Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 7 is
erroneous based on the arguments proffered with respect to claim 2,
concerning the claimed “values,” we are unpersuaded by Appellants’
arguments for the same reasons stated with respect to claim 2.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 7 as
being unpatentable over Bailis in view of Langseth.
Claim 12
Appellants contend that the rejection of claim 12 is improper because
the combination of Bailis, Langseth, and Risch fails to teach or suggest
changing the monitored values in response to detecting a change to an
object. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants argue that Risch monitors particular
attributes of an object where a client has requested that a particular attribute
be monitored. Br. 9. Appellants make a blanket statement that there is no
disclosure in Risch that those particular attributes change or that the change
is applied in a recursive manner. Id. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’
arguments.
The Examiner relies on Risch, column 3, lines 60-68, as disclosing the
disputed limitations. Ans. 16. In particular, the Examiner finds that Risch
teaches (1) a filter condition, as claimed, by disclosing a change in the
monitored attribute value; (2) sending a notification to a user; and (3)
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

11

continuing to monitor said attribute, thereby “making the filter conditions
recursive.” Ans. 16. Contrary to Appellants’ blanket statement, Risch
teaches that for each attribute that is monitored, a record of the value of that
attribute is maintained. Risch, col. 7, ll. 59-61. A table for maintaining the
records of the values compares the current value of a monitored attribute
with the recorded value after an update is performed. Risch, col. 7, l. 65 –
col. 8, l. 2. And a function dependence table maintains the functions that are
used to access values for monitored attributes, such that changes in the
functions can also be updated. Risch, col. 8, ll. 16-27. Therefore, Risch
supports the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 by disclosing monitored
attributes, whose values are recorded in a table, and by disclosing that when
a change is detected in the monitored attribute, the value of the monitored
attribute (and appropriate functions) is updated accordingly, in a recursive
manner.
Finally, we do not agree with Appellants’ contention that the
Examiner has confused the act of changing which attributes to monitor in the
future, per Appellants’ claim, with changing the latest value of a monitored
attribute as a new reference for future changes as disclosed in Risch. Br. 9.
The broadest reasonable claim interpretation of changing a set of one or
more “filter conditions” does not preclude the claim scope from
encompassing Risch’s monitoring of attributes and functions (or any other
query criteria), as well as the update of attribute values and functional
results. Consequently, the Examiner’s findings concerning Risch’s
disclosure of the limitations recited in claim 12 are reasonable.
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

12

Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 12
as being unpatentable over Bailis in view of Langseth, and in further view of
Risch.
Remaining Claims
With respect to the remaining, non-argued claims, Appellants allow
those claims to rise or fall with the claims on which they depend. Br. 9-10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of all remaining claims (4,
5, 6, 8-11, 13, 15, 17-26) for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 14, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bailis.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 7, 15, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bailis in view of
Langseth.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 9, 13, 17, 22, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bailis in view of
Risch.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 18, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bailis in view of Risch
and Tow.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-13 and 21-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bailis, Langseth, Risch, and
Tow.
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

13

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc