Ex Parte Murthy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2014

11442002 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2014)

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.
11/442,002 05/26/2006 Ravi Murthy 50277-3042 9882
42425 7590 12/15/2014
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
OHBA, MELLISSA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2014 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 RAVI MURTHY
____________________

Appeal 2012-004174
Application 11/442,002
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4–13, and 15–22. Claims 3 and 14 are indicated as having
allowable subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to access control within
a database system (Spec. ¶ 0003).

Appeal 2012-004174
Application 11/442,002

2
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method, comprising computer-implemented steps of:
receiving a request to execute a query for one or more
principals;
wherein said query requires an operation to a base table,
said operation requiring a privilege to perform;
wherein each row of said base table is associated with an
ACL (Access Control List) of a plurality of ACLs;
rewriting said query to generate a first rewritten query, wherein
the rewriting causes execution of said first rewritten query to:
generate a result that identifies one or more ACLs that
grant the one or more principals said privilege;
by using said result that identifies one or more ACLs,
perform an index evaluation to determine which of said one or
more rows in said base table are associated with said one or
more ACLs, without accessing one or more rows in the base
table to identify the one or more rows, said index evaluation
accessing a first index using said result that identifies one or
more ACLs, wherein said first index is ordered by key values of
a key of said first index, wherein each key value of said key
values identifies an ACL of said plurality of ACLs; and
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices.

C. REJECTION
Appeal 2012-004174
Application 11/442,002

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Dutta US 7,200,595 B2 Apr. 3, 2007
Jalali US 2003/0033285 A1 Feb. 13, 2003
Claims 1, 2, 4–13, and 15–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Dutta and Jalali.

II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Dutta and Jalali teaches or would have suggested
“rewriting said query to generate a first rewritten query,” wherein “the
rewriting causes execution of said first rewritten query to … generate a
result that identifies one or more ACLs” and “by using said result…,
perform an index evaluation,” wherein “said first index is ordered by key
values of a key of said first index,” and “each key value … identifies an
ACL” (claim 1, emphases added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Dutta
1. Dutta discloses access control of data stored in relational
databases, wherein a security descriptor store stores security descriptors, and
each security descriptor controls discriminatory access to resources that it is
associated with. The security descriptor store can be an ordered set of
access control entities, and the security descriptor is an access control list
associated with the rows of the tables in the databases (col. 2, ll. 45–67).
Appeal 2012-004174
Application 11/442,002

4
2. When rows of a table secured by security policies in the form of
security descriptors are accessed, the database engine enforces the security
policy by verifying that the requester of the query has the permission to read
the rows based on the policy determined by the security descriptor
associated with each row (col. 7, ll. 53–63).
3. The query plan that gets executed is different from the query
actually posed by the requestor, wherein access re-ordering is done to reduce
costs of accessing the rows (col. 7, l. 66 to col. 8, l. 3), and query
optimization is performed by the query optimizer (col. 8, ll. 10–29).
Jalali
4. Jalali discloses indexing structuring data that provides
hierarchical access in a relational database system, wherein a column
contains access control data used to determine user access privileges. A
particular entry in an index contains data used to determine user privilege for
a node and the row corresponding to the node (¶[0063]).
5. In Jalali, an index indexes a table and is arranged and ordered
based on key values. The index contains a plurality of index entries with
each entry mapping to at least one corresponding row in the table and
containing access control data that defines user access privileges to access
the corresponding row (¶ 87; claim 1).
IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant contends “Dutta does not perform an index evaluation at
all” (App. Br. 6). Although Appellant concedes “Jalali performs an index
evaluation,” Appellant contends Jalali performs index evaluation “not using
access control information” as claimed (App. Br. 7).
Appeal 2012-004174
Application 11/442,002

5
Appellant also contend “there is nothing in Jalali to teach or suggest
that an ACL identifier is used as a key value in the index, as claimed” (App.
Br. 8). Furthermore, Appellant contends “Dutta makes no mention of
rewriting queries” and “Jalali also fails to mention a rewritten query” (App.
Br. 9).
However, the Examiner finds “Dutta et al. discloses ‘ACL’ being
use[d] to access databases” wherein “relational databases optimize queries
on various indices present on the table,” while “Jalali et al. discloses
‘Access control data’ which is read on access control list because the ‘access
control data’ is used to determine user access privileges by evaluating the
index in a table” (Ans. 14). The Examiner explains “the examiner has
incorporated Jalali to show an ‘index evaluation’ and Dutta et al. the primary
reference to disclose ‘ACL’ being use[d] to access databases through query
optimization” (Ans. 15).
The Examiner also finds Dutta discloses the use of “ACL” and
“accessing database through tables” wherein “tables could be read on
indexes;” and Jalali discloses “the ‘access control data’ is used to determine
user access privileges by evaluating the index in a table” (Ans. 16) wherein
“the index is ordered by ‘key values’” (Ans. 7). The Examiner then finds
Dutta discloses that “the query plan entered by the requestor is often quite
‘different’ from the original query” and thus suggests that “optimizing … of
a query can generate a query rewrite” (Ans. 17).
We find no error with the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness.
Although Appellant contends “Dutta does not perform an index
evaluation at all” (App. Br. 6) and “there is nothing in Jalali to teach or
Appeal 2012-004174
Application 11/442,002

6
suggest that an ACL identifier is used as a key value in the index, as
claimed” (App. Br. 8), the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over the
combined references. The test for obviousness is not what the references
individually disclose, as Appellant argues, but what the combination would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). That is, Appellant cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually since the references
should be viewed in combination.
To determine whether the claims would have been obvious over the
combined teachings of Dutta and Jalali, we give the claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As an initial matter of claim construction, although Appellant
contends the prior art teachings do not perform index evaluation (App. 6–7),
we conclude claim 1 does not positively recite any step of performing an
index evaluation. Instead, claim 1 merely requires “rewriting” a query
which “causes execution” of the rewritten query for the intended purpose of
“to … perform an index evaluation.” That is, the index evaluation itself is
not required to be performed in claim 1, but rather index evaluation is
merely the intended purpose of the execution of the rewritten query. In fact,
claim 1 does not even require executing the rewritten query, but rather, the
step of rewriting the query “causes” an execution. The intended purpose
does not limit the scope of the claim because the intended purpose merely
defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim
Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
Appeal 2012-004174
Application 11/442,002

7
Nevertheless, we give “rewriting” a query its broadest reasonable
interpretation as modifying an already written query. We note Appellant has
not pointed to a limiting definition for “rewriting” in the Specification, and
that the plain language of claim 1 does preclude the Examiner’s broader
interpretation. We find no error with Examiner’s finding that Dutta
discloses “the query plan entered by the requestor is often quite ‘different’
from the original query” and thus Dutta suggests “optimizing … of a query
can generate a query rewrite” (Ans. 17; FF 3). That is, on this record, we are
not persuaded the Examiner’s claim interpretation is overly broad or
unreasonable.1
Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding Dutta in view of
Jalali teaches or at least suggests “rewriting said query to generate a first
rewritten query,” as required by claim 1.
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding “Dutta et al. discloses
‘ACL’ being use[d] to access databases” wherein “relational databases
optimize queries on various access paths or indices present on the table,”
while “Jalali et al. discloses ‘Access control data’ which is read on access
control list because the ‘access control data’ is used to determine user access

1 Our reviewing court guides: “[A]lthough the specification often describes
very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned
against confining the claims to those embodiments. . . . [C]laims may
embrace ‘different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific
embodiments in the specification.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). Because “applicants
may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during
prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON
Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted).
Appeal 2012-004174
Application 11/442,002

8
privileges by evaluating the index in a table,” with the index being “ordered
by ‘key values’” (Ans. 7 and 14; FF 1–5). In particular, we find no error
with the Examiner’s incorporation of Jalali “to show an ‘index evaluation’”
and the incorporation of Dutta “to disclose ‘ACL’ being use[d] to access
databases through query optimization” (Ans. 15). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the combined teachings would at least have suggested “a
[query] result that identifies one or more ACLs” and used to “perform an
index evaluation” wherein the index “is ordered by key values” and “each
key value … identifies an ACL” as required in claim 1.
The Supreme Court has determined the conclusion of obviousness can
be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and
the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Here, we conclude it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
in the art to combine Dutta’s teaching of rewriting a query to generate a
result that identifies ACLs (FF 1–3) with Jalali’s index evaluation wherein
the index is ordered by key values (FF 4–5). Further, it would be well
within the ordinary skill of the artisan, in view of the combined teachings, to
use Dutta’s ACL identifiers as a key value in Jalali’s index. The skilled
artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21.
As Appellant concedes, “Jalali performs an index evaluation” (App.
Br. 7). Although Appellant contends Jalali performs index evaluation “not
using access control information” (id.), Appellant has presented no evidence
Appeal 2012-004174
Application 11/442,002

9
that combining Dutta’s ACL identifiers with Jalali’s index evaluation , thus,
using ACL identifiers as a key value in an index, was “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418). We find the Examiner’s proffered combination of familiar
prior art elements according to their established functions would have
conveyed a reasonable expectation of success to a person of ordinary skill
having common sense at the time of the invention (Ans. 5–8 and 14–19).
Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 over Dutta and Jalali.
As for dependent claim 4, although Appellant contends “neither Dutta
nor Jalali teach rewriting a query to generate two queries and comparing two
the re-written queries” (App. Br. 11, emphasis omitted and added),
Appellant is reminded the test for obviousness is not what the references
individually teach, but what the combination would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. We agree with the Examiner that Dutta in view of
Jalali at least suggests “query optimization” which includes 1) “query plan
modifications well in line with the defined ‘query rewrite’” and 2) “pruning
of expensive ones” where “a comparison is being made” (Ans. 20, emphases
omitted).
As for dependent claim 8, although Appellant contends “Dutta and
Jalali both fail to teach wherein said plurality of ACLs are stored as data that
conforms to XML” (App. Br. 12, emphasis omitted and added), we agree
with the Examiner that Jalali at least suggests using XML documents (Ans.
21).
Appeal 2012-004174
Application 11/442,002

10
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 4 and 8 over Dutta and Jalali. Appellant does not
provide arguments for claims 2, 5–7, 9–13, and 15–22 depending from
claim 1 separate from those of claim 1 (App. 12), and thus, claims 2, 5–7, 9–
13, and 15–22 also fall with claim 1 over Dutta and Jalali.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims1, 2, 4–13, and 15–22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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
tc