Ex Parte Larson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2013

10971600 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PER-AKE LARSON, JINGREN ZHOU,
and JONATHAN GOLDSTEIN
____________

Appeal 2010-002635
Application 10/971,600
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC B. CHEN, and JEREMY J. CURCURI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 13, 18-20, 22-28, and 30-34. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention partially materializes views of database records
by generating a view definition including a query expression and at least one
control predicate referencing at least one control table. The control
predicate and control table restrict which records are materialized and stored
in the view. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
Appeal 2010-002635
Application 10/971,600

2
1. A method implemented on a computer of partially materializing a
view of database records, comprising:

creating a view expression that, when evaluated against a source table,
is sufficient to produce a view of the database records that is a fully
materialized view, wherein the fully materialized view includes every record
of the database records that satisfies the view expression, and wherein the
source table represents relations over data of a database containing the
database records;

creating a control table, the control table being distinct from the
source table, wherein the control table comprises a parameter value;

creating a control predicate that references the control table, the
control predicate utilizing the parameter value from the control table,
wherein the view expression constrained by the control predicate and the
parameter value of the control table, when evaluated against the source table,
is sufficient to produce another view of the database records that is a
partially materialized view that is a subset of the fully materialized view;

materializing the partially materialized view based on the view
expression constrained by the control predicate and parameter.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 13, 18-20, 22-28, and 30-34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Witkowski (US
2004/0034616 A1; published Feb. 19, 2004) and McGoveran (US
2003/0187864 A1; published Oct. 2, 2003). Ans. 3-15.1

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 2, 2009
(supplemented August 14, 2009) (“Br.”) and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
September 9, 2009 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2010-002635
Application 10/971,600

3
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Witkowski discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 1 except for the recited control table and control
predicate creation steps, but cites McGoveran as teaching these features in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3-6, 16-17.
According to the Examiner, McGoveran’s system catalog (SC) 25 and its
associated tables teach the recited control table, and the functionality
associated with McGoveran’s Table 1 creates a control predicate that uses a
parameter value in the control table, namely a value associated with multi-
relation constraints retrieved from that table. Ans. 6, 16. The Examiner
adds that McGoveran’s “view expressions” in the relational expression
column of Table 1 are constrained by control predicates and retrieved
parameter values. Ans. 6, 17.
Appellants argue that McGoveran does not teach a parameter value
from a control table being utilized by a control predicate, let alone a view
expression constrained by this predicate and value to produce a partially
materialized view as claimed. Br. 8-10, 14-19. Although Appellants
acknowledge McGoveran’s using stored predicates to constrain a relation’s
data and view, this is said to differ from the recited view expression
constraint. Br. 14-19. Appellants also argue various limitations of claims 13
and 24 summarized below. Br. 10-14.

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Witkowski and
McGoveran collectively would have taught or suggested:
Appeal 2010-002635
Application 10/971,600

4
(1) creating (a) a control table distinct from a source table, where the
control table comprises a parameter value, and (b) a control predicate
referencing the control table, the predicate utilizing the parameter value from
the control table, where a view expression constrained by the predicate and
value of the control table, when executed against the source table, is
sufficient to produce a partially materialized view of database records as
recited in claim 1?
(2) one or more control tables specifying parameters evaluated by the
control predicate, where a view defining expression is constrained by at least
one control predicate and the parameters as recited in claim 13?
(3) a partially materialized view produced at least based on a control
predicate and parameters evaluated by the control predicate, the parameters
specified in a control table that is distinct from at least one source table as
recited in claim 24?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 10
We begin by noting that since the Examiner’s findings regarding
Witkowski are undisputed, we confine our discussion to McGoveran. First,
we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on McGoveran’s SC for teaching
the recited control table, for the SC includes tables that store constraints that
reasonably comports with the recited “parameter values” as the Examiner
indicates. Ans. 16 (citing McGoveran ¶¶ 0076, 0122).
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 16-17)
that McGoveran’s relational predicates use these parameter values at least to
the extent that they are searched for and retrieved from the SC and logically
Appeal 2010-002635
Application 10/971,600

5
conjoined with existing predicates. See Ans. 16-17; McGoveran ¶¶ 0076,
0088, 0090, 0122. These control predicates and parameter values effectively
constrain the “view expressions” which the Examiner maps to the relational
expressions in McGoveran’s Table 1. The particular example referred to by
the Examiner in Paragraph 0095 in this regard (Ans. 17) pertains to the first
three relational operations in Table 1, namely (1) product; (2) restriction;
and (3) projection and their corresponding relational expressions (“view
expressions”) (e.g., “R2 PRODUCT R3”), where R2 and R3 are arbitrary
relations. McGoveran ¶ 0083. Notably, the corresponding logical
expressions in the third column of Table 1 (e.g., “PR2 AND PR3”) contain
respective Relation Predicates that are logically conjoined with retrieved
constraints as indicated in multi-relation constraint column of Table 1. See
McGoveran ¶¶ 0083, 0085, 0088, 0090. Based on this functionality, the
relational expressions (“view expressions”) are effectively constrained by
their associated control predicates and parameter values as the Examiner
indicates. Ans. 6, 16-17. Combining this technique with Witkowski to
produce a partially materialized view of database records as the Examiner
proposes merely predictably uses prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellants’ arguments regarding
McGoveran’s using stored predicates to constrain a relation’s data and view,
but not a view expression (Br. 16-19) are unavailing, for they do not
squarely address the Examiner’s mapping noted above.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 3, 7, and 10 not separately argued with
particularity.
Appeal 2010-002635
Application 10/971,600

6
Claims 13, 18-20, 22, and 23
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 reciting, in
pertinent part, one or more control tables specifying parameters evaluated by
the control predicate, where a view defining expression is constrained by at
least one control predicate and the parameters. Despite Appellants’
arguments to the contrary (Br. 10-12), Appellants do not persuasively rebut
the Examiner’s position that McGoveran’s predicates evaluate parameter
values at least to the extent that they are searched for and retrieved from the
SC and logically conjoined. See Ans. 7-9, 18-19; McGoveran ¶¶ 0076,
0088, 0090, 0122. We are likewise unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
position that McGoveran’s view defining expression is constrained by at
least one control predicate and the parameters for the reasons noted above
and by the Examiner. Ans. 18-19.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 13, and claims 18-20, 22, and 23 not separately argued
with particularity.

Claims 24-28 and 30-34
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 24
which, while nominally argued separately (Br. 12-14), recites control
predicate evaluation limitations commensurate with those recited in claim
13. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 24 for the reasons noted above and by the Examiner. Ans. 10-12, 19-
21. To the extent that Appellants contend that the cited prior art does not
teach “the claimed ‘view expression constrained by the control predicate and
the parameter value of the control table’” (Br. 14; emphasis added), this
Appeal 2010-002635
Application 10/971,600

7
argument is unavailing, for this quoted limitation does not appear in claim
24.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 24, and claims 25-28 and 30-34 not separately argued
with particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 13, 18-20, 22-
28, and 30-34 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 13, 18-20, 22-28,
and 30-34 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

rwk