Ex Parte Barsness et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2013

11972848 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC LAWRENCE BARSNESS
and JOHN MATTHEW SANTOSUOSSO
____________

Appeal 2011-005767
Application 11/972,848
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEYER, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-20 (Br. 2).2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
Br. 1.
2 Claims 2, 10, and 17 were previously canceled.
Appeal 2011-005767
Application 11/972,848

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Illustrative Claim
Appellants’ disclosure relates to query optimizers for improving a
database query that searches for a character string in a computer database.
Spec. ¶ [0001]. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with the
disputed features highlighted:
1. A computer apparatus comprising:
at least one processor;
a memory coupled to the at least one processor;
a database residing in the memory having a record with a
beginning position;
a query that specifies a sequential string search of the
record;
a query optimizer that optimizes the query by
determining a starting position other than the beginning
position of the record to start the string search; and
wherein the starting position is determined based on a
starting position table containing historical information of
previous text string searches.

Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Abdo (US 2008/0215582 A1;
published Sep. 4, 2008). Ans. 3-7.3

3 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Appellant’s Brief dated October 14,
2010, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 10, 2010.
Appeal 2011-005767
Application 11/972,848

3
ISSUE
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following dispositive
issue4:
Did the Examiner err by finding that Abdo teaches determining the
starting position of a string search query based on a starting position table
containing historical information of previous text string searches?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Abdo does not
disclose that a “starting position [of a query] is determined based on a
starting position table containing historical information of previous text
string searches” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 13; see also, Br. 6-8). We agree
with Appellants that Abdo does not disclose this claim feature.
As described by Appellants, Abdo teaches generating statistics for a
pattern matching predicate using stored character statistics (Br. 6; Abdo,
Abstract). A data structure stores, for each of a plurality of character
positions, a list of characters occurring most frequently at that position and
the count thereof (see Abdo, Abstract; ¶ [0031]). Frequently occurring
characters for subsequent character positions are also stored (see Abdo,
Abstract; ¶ [0032]).
The Examiner relies on this data structure, and the use thereof, as
disclosing the claim limitation that the “starting position is determined based
on a starting position table containing historical information of previous text

4 Appellants’ contentions raise additional issues. As the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
Appeal 2011-005767
Application 11/972,848

4
string searches” (Ans. 4, 7-8). However, while Abdo uses historical
statistics (i.e., data stored in the data structure of Fig. 4), there is no
disclosure in Abdo of using these statistics to start a search somewhere other
than the start of the record. Instead, as noted by Appellants, Abdo uses the
stored statistics to estimate the number of tuples/row matching a pattern
matching predicate, not to determine where to begin a search (Br. 6; see
also, Abdo, ¶ [0035]; Fig. 6).
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Abdo. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 9 and 16, which
recite similar limitations to that which we find not disclosed by the cited art;
and (3) claims 3-8, 11-15, and 18-20, which depend from claim 1, 9, or 16.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-20
is reversed.

REVERSED

msc