10629459 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2012)

Ex Parte Zhang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 15, 2012

10629459 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/629,459 07/29/2003 Guogen Zhang SVL920030024US1 7326 45729 7590 02/15/2012 GATES & COOPER LLP 6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST SUITE 1050 LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/15/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte GUOGEN ZHANG, FEN-LING LIN, JUNG-HSIN HU, YAO- CHING S. CHEN, YUN WANG, and GLENN M. YUKI ____________ Appeal 2009-014251 Application 10/629,459 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-014251 Application 10/629,459 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-3. (App. Br. 2.) Claims 4-9 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary independent claim 1 is as follows: 1. A method of optimizing a query in a computer system, the query being performed by the computer system to retrieve data from a database stored on the computer system, the method comprising: (a) during compilation of the query, maintaining a GROUP BY clause with one or more GROUPING SETS, ROLLUP or CUBE operations in its original form, instead of rewriting the GROUP BY clause, until after query rewrite; (b) at a later stage of query compilation, translating the GROUP BY clause with the GROUPING SETS, ROLLUP or CUBE operations into a plurality of levels, wherein each of the levels has one or more grouping sets comprised of grouping columns, and generating a query execution plan for the query with a super group block having an array of pointers, wherein each pointer points to the grouping sets for a particular one of the levels; and (c) performing the query execution plan to retrieve data from a database stored on the computer system. Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng (“Implementation of Two Semantic Query Appeal 2009-014251 Application 10/629,459 3 Optimization Techniques in DB2Universal Database”), in view of Cochrane (US 5,963,936) and Al-omari (6,438,741). (Ans. 4-6.) ISSUE Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Did the Examiner establish that the combination of Cheng, Cochrane, and Al-omari renders obvious the steps of (a) “maintaining a GROUP BY clause with one or more GROUPING SETS, ROLLUP or CUBE operations in its original form, instead of rewriting the GROUP BY clause, until after query rewrite,” and (b) “at a later stage of query compilation, translating the GROUP BY clause … into a plurality of levels, wherein each of the levels has one or more grouping sets comprised of grouping columns, and generating a query execution plan for the query with a super group block having an array of pointers, wherein each pointer points to the grouping sets for a particular one of the levels”? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion regarding the rejections of claims 1-3. 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 the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding the claim Appeal 2009-014251 Application 10/629,459 4 limitations relating to (a) maintaining a GROUP BY clause until after query rewrite, and (b) translating the GROUP BY clause into levels. Appellants argue that claim 1 is not obvious because Cheng’s “GROUP BY clause is not ‘maintained during compilation' ….” (App. Br. 13.) Appellants also argue that “the GROUP BY clause in Cheng does not have GROUPING SETS, ROLLUP or CUBE operations in its original form.” (Id.) But as explained by the Examiner, the GROUP BY clause in Q’1 in Cheng is, in fact, not changed during any query rewrite. (Ans. 4, citing Cheng p. 1, Example 1, p. 5.) Moreover, Cochrane suggests a GROUP BY clause having GROUPING SETS, ROLLUP and CUBE operations. (Ans. 4; citing Cochrane 7:26-30 and 7:44-48.) Appellants also argue that “the groups in Al-omari are in no way equivalent to Appellants’ claimed super group block.” (App. Br. 14.) Appellants further argue, with respect to claim 2 and similarly with respect to claim 3, that “Cochrane says nothing about group sets sequences, or dynamically determining, at query execution time, a grouping sets sequence for a GROUP BY clause with GROUPING SETS, ROLLUP, or CUBE operations, based on intermediate grouping sets, in order to optimize the grouping sets sequence.” (Id. at 15.) As explained by the Examiner, however, Al-omari teaches groups containing pointers to table expressions, which include GROUP BYs. (Ans. 9, citing Al-omari Figure 5B, 9:31-43 and 16:50-59.) Moreover, Cochrane “teaches to generate a stack of GROUP BYs, in which each pervious GROUP BY serves as an input to the next GROUP BY.” (Ans. 10, citing Cochrane 11:34-12:35.) Accordingly, the groups in Al-omari containing pointers to GROUP BYs arranged in a stack Appeal 2009-014251 Application 10/629,459 5 as taught by Cochrane, do, in fact, have all the features of the super group block recited in claims 1, 2, and 3. For these reasons and the reasons expressed in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 4-5 and 7-10), we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 3. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3. 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 tj