Ex Parte Evans et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

10673140 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/673,140 09/30/2003 Christopher Evans
42425 7590 12/25/2018
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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.
50277-4111 3825
EXAMINER
MAHMOOD, REZWANUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER EV ANS, PAOLO FRAGAP ANE,
STEPHEN CA VE, JAMES STEADMAN, ANDREW OSBORN, and
KATHRYN NASH
Appeal2017-002347
Application 10/673,140
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1-7 and 9-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
AFFIRM.
Appeal2017-002347
Application 10/673,140
BACKGROUND
Appellants' disclosed invention relates to a method of preventing
execution of unnecessary joins between tables in a database referred to by a
Structured Query Language (SQL) statement. Spec. 1, 11. 3-5. Independent
claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method of preventing execution of
unnecessary joins between tables in a database, the method
comprising the steps of:
presenting a Structured Query Language (SQL) statement to the
database;
determining one or more candidate tables for join elimination
referred to by the SQL statement, wherein the one or more
candidate tables for join elimination are not directly referred
to by the SQL statement;
identifying one or more unnecessary joins of the SQL statement
that involve a table selected from the one or more candidate
tables for join elimination based on a set of rules that each
determine whether a table must be accessed in order to
return a set of results;
preventing, in execution of the SQL statement, execution of the
one or more unnecessary joins identified based on the set of
rules; and
returning the set of results from the database based on said
execution of the SQL statement.
EVIDENCE CONSIDERED
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
U.S. Patent No. 6,640,221 Bl, filed July 10, 2000, issued October 28,
2003 ("Levine");
2
Appeal2017-002347
Application 10/673,140
U.S. Patent No. 5,764,973, filed September 13, 1995, issued June 9,
1998 ("Lunceford"); and
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0163461 Al, filed January 30, 2003,
published August 28, 2003 ("Gudbjartsson").
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1--4 and 9--12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Levine and Lunceford. Ans. 3-29.
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Levine, Lunceford, and Gudbjartsson. Ans. 29--41.
ISSUES
Appellants argue that "it is clear error for the Examiner to divide the
phrase 'join elimination' in order to allege that Levine discloses
'determining one or more candidate tables for join ... ' thereby stripping the
term of its meaning," particularly "given that the Appeal Board reversed the
Examiner" in a prior Appeal on an issue Appellants assert is related. App.
Br. 7. Additionally, Appellants argue that "Lunceford does not disclose
preventing, in execution of the SQL statement, of any unnecessary join that
is identified," "[i]nstead, Lunceford generates a SQL statement." App. Br.
10. These arguments present us with the following issues:
( 1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Levine
and Lunceford teaches "determining one or more candidate tables
for join elimination referred to by the SQL statement, wherein the
one or more candidate tables for join elimination are not directly
3
Appeal2017-002347
Application 10/673,140
referred to by the SQL statement" ("the 'determining' step")
recited in representative claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Levine
and Lunceford teaches "preventing, in execution of the SQL
statement, execution of the one or more unnecessary joins
identified based on the set of rules" ("the 'preventing' step")
recited in representative claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7 and 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
First Issue
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that the Examiner
erred in construing the "determining" step recited in representative claim 1
by "stripping the term uoin elimination] of its meaning," particularly "given
that the Appeal Board reversed the Examiner." App. Br. 7. 1 As
background, we previously decided issues somewhat related to the
arguments raised in regards to the instant application. In particular, in the
Decision on Appeal No. 2011-000152 ("prior Decision" or "Dec."), we did
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of then pending independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon Levine. Dec. 4--5. The claim
1 Appellants treat independent claim 1 as representative. Id.
4
Appeal2017-002347
Application 10/673,140
language at issue in that proceeding was different from that before us today.
In the previous case, we addressed whether Levine disclosed the recited
''preventing execution of joins ... " App. Br. 7. Contrary to Appellants'
contention, we concurred with only "Appellants' conclusion that the
Examiner erred in finding that Levine discloses 'preventing execution of
joins involving any of the tables remaining in the list"' as recited in then
pending independent claim 1 and our prior Decision was limited to excerpts
of only Levine that the Examiner identified in that prior proceeding. Dec. 3-
4.
In the instant proceeding, however, claim 1 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Levine and Lunceford. Ans.
2. The Examiner provides detailed findings showing how the combination
of Levine and Lunceford teaches "determining one or more candidate tables
for join elimination ... " as recited in claim 1 and articulates reasoning with
a rationale underpinning to combine Levine and Lunceford. See e.g., id. at
3-9, 15-16. We concur with the Examiner and adopt as our own the
findings and reasoning set forth by the Examiner. Id.
For instance, the Examiner points to column 10 lines 35 through 67
and column 11 lines 12 through 65 of Lunceford as teaching "which tables
are candidates for elimination from the join" and Appellants assert that this
teaching renders obvious the recited "one or more candidate tables for join
elimination" and provides detailed findings regarding portions of Levine that
teach the remainder of the "determining" step. Id. We are not persuaded by
Appellants that the Examiner erred by citing both Levine and Lunceford for
the "determining" step recited in claim 1 because such combination
allegedly is inconsistent with our prior Decision pertaining to anticipation
5
Appeal2017-002347
Application 10/673,140
and the "preventing" step of then pending claim 1. See, e.g., App. Br. 7.
We are not persuaded that any such inconsistency exists. As noted above,
the claim language and specific combination of references asserted in the
instant matter are different from those addressed in the previous case.
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellants that Levine's teachings
pertaining to SQL statements are deficient because the Examiner used an
overly narrow construction. Reply 3-5. Appellants acknowledge that
Levine discloses a SELECT statement and Appellants' assertion that Levine
is deficient because it does not disclose "a select clause" is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Id. at 3--4. In particular, claim 1
recites "determining one or more candidate tables for join elimination
referred to by the SQL statement" ( emphasis added), whereas "a SELECT
clause of the SQL statement" was deleted from consideration by a claim
amendment. See Advisory Action (Oct. 1, 2015) (entering the amendment
of claims 1 and 9 after the final office action).
Second Issue
Regarding the "preventing" step recited in representative claim 1, we
also are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that "Lunceford does not
disclose preventing, in execution of the SQL statement, of any unnecessary
join that is identified," "[i]nstead, Lunceford generates a SQL statement."
App. Br. 10; see also Reply 5-7 (asserting Lunceford is deficient because
"Lunceford discusses only SQL creation, not SQL execution").
The Examiner cites Lunceford's processing tables in the list of
"Tables To Be Joined," which involves removing tables directly linked to a
starting table and placing them in the "Tables Joined" list, which then is
6
Appeal2017-002347
Application 10/673,140
concatenated onto the SQL string. See, e.g., Ans. 14, 20-22 (citing
Lunceford 10:35---67, 11: 12---65). Additionally, the Examiner articulates
reasoning with a rationale underpinning to combine those teachings in
Lunceford with the teachings in Levine regarding execution of one or more
joins. See, e.g., id. at 15, 22-23. We concur with the Examiner and adopt as
our own the findings and reasoning set forth by the Examiner. Id. at 14--15,
20-23.
Conclusion
Appellants' contentions directed to the first and second issues have
not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of representative claim
1, or independent claim 9, which is similar to claim 1 and not separately
argued by Appellants. App. Br. 6-11. With respect to the rejections of
dependent claims 2-7 and 10-15, Appellants do not provide separate
arguments for their patentability. Id. at 11-17. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments and we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 7 and 9 through 15.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 7 and 9
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7