Ex Parte Murthy

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 21, 2012

11388300 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2012)

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.
11/388,300 03/24/2006 Ravi Murthy 50277-3043 6349
42425 7590 06/21/2012
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2012 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 RAVI MURTHY
____________________

Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-13, 15, 17-29, and 31. Claims 14, 16, and 30 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The invention on appeal relates to a method of performing database
queries using an operator dedicated to efficiently finding near matches
relative to a target value. (Spec. 6).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
computing a statement that contains an operator, wherein
operands of the operator include a column reference and a target
value;

examining an index to compute said statement, said index
including a body of entries that contain index values of a key of said
index,

wherein said key is based on said column,

wherein examining said index includes traversing said index to
identify one or more entries whose index values are closer to said
target value than the index value of any other entry in the body of
entries;

wherein none of the index values of the one or more entries
equals said target value; and

generating a result based on the one or more entries.
Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
3
REJECTION
Claims 1-13, 15, 17-29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Metzger (U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2005/0010564 A1 (published January 13,
2005)), Chowdhuri (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0218123
A1 (published September 28, 2006)), and Woo (U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2004/0030691A1 (published February 12, 2004)).

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the principal Brief, we decide the
appeal on the basis of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, page 7, et seq.
Independent Claim 1
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
the following disputed limitations:
wherein examining said index includes traversing said index to
identify one or more entries whose index values are closer to
said target value than the index value of any other entry in the
body of entries;

wherein none of the index values of the one or more entries
equals said target value,

within the meaning of independent claim 1 (emphasis added)?

Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
4
Appellant contends: (1) that none of the references teaches or suggests
traversing an index “to identify one or more entries whose index values are
closer to said target value than the index value of any other entry in the body
of entries” (claim 1), in the manner recited (App. Br. 7), (2) that Metzger
teaches away from the use of an index, as claimed (id. at 8), and (3) the cited
portion of Chowdhuri fails to teach or suggest the specifically recited
operands of an operator (id. at 10).
The Examiner disagrees:
[The] Examiner submits that Metzger in combination
with Chowdhu]ri and Woo teach the traversal of an index in
paragraphs 49 - 51 of Metzger, where Metzger discloses that
the 4 elements are used for the procedure in figure 6 and a
comparison operator is being used to compare the value to the
target value, this is only possible if the index of values was/is
being traversed. Furthermore, the claim as written states that
the traversal is done to accomplish a purpose of finding the
closest/nearest value to target value and the same is being
accomplished by Metzger that is the nearly ordered map index
entry is being found in the cited paragraphs 49 - 51.
(Ans. 11).
We begin our analysis by concluding that the disputed limitations of
“one or more entries whose index values are closer to said target value than
the index value of any other entry in the body of entries . . . wherein none of
the index values of the one or more entries equals said target value” (claim
1), at least cover a single entry closest to the target value, where the single
entry closest to the target value may be less than or greater than the target
entry.
As the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held: “[w]here a
claimed range overlaps with a range disclosed in the prior art, there is a
presumption of obviousness.” Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 463
Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
5
F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The overlap need not
be substantial to trigger the presumption. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469
(Fed. Cir.1997).
Here, we conclude that Metzger’s teaching of “greater-than” and
“less-than” comparisons (para. [0049]) at least suggests (and thus renders
obvious) the disputed limitations because the claimed range at least overlaps
with a range encompassed by the “greater-than” and “less-than” operators
taught by Metzger (id.). The Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness is further buttressed by Woo’s teaching of determining near
matches of a particular musical note sequence (target value) within a
prescribed variance decided by the user (para. [0011]). Contrary to
Appellant’ s arguments (App. Br. 9 “no index is used”), we find Woo does
teach the use of an index, as depicted within Figure 4 (FIND INDEX
POSITION) and Figure 5 where scale steps (01-12) designate the twelve
semitones within an octave. See also Woo: “the Format-2 subroutine will
find the index position of the note . . .” (para. [0034]) (emphasis added).
Regarding Appellant’s “teaching away” argument, we observe that
Metzger expressly teaches the use of column indexes (para. [0049]), and
Chowdhuri expressly teaches indexes that “can be created on columns or
groups of columns in a table” (para. [0115]). Woo also teaches the use of an
index (for musical notes), as discussed above. Thus, the use of indexes in
the database art is notoriously well known, as evidenced by the teachings of
each cited reference.
Moreover, we are not persuaded that Metzger disavows all use of
indexes. To the contrary, we observe that paragraph [0015] of Metzger
merely indicates that “[t]here are several problems with the prior art’s
Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
6
simplistic use of indices to improve query performance” (emphasis added).
Thus, we do not find Appellant’s “teaching away” argument dispositive
regarding the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness.
Nor are we persuaded that Appellant’s claimed “operands of the
operator that] include a column reference and a target value” (claim 1) are
anything more than an arrangement of prior art elements with each element
performing the same function it had been known to perform. We find such
arrangement “yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement.” The Supreme Court guides that such a combination of
familiar elements is obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S.
398, 417 (citing Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
For these reasons, on this record we are not persuaded of Examiner
error regarding claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1. Associated dependent claims 15, 17, and 31 (not argued separately)
fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Independent Claim 5
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
the following disputed limitations:
wherein the operator indicates that one or more rows are to be
retrieved from the table and that each row of the one or more
rows is to contain a value, in said column, nearer to the target
value than any other value, in said column, that is associated
with a row that is not of the one or more rows;

. . . .

Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
7
the value of said column of said at least one row is
nearer in value to the target value than the value corresponding
to said column of every other row in said table; and

the value of said column of said at least one row is not
equal to the target value,

within the meaning of independent claim 5 (emphasis added)?
Appellant contends that independent claim 5 is patentable over the
cited references for the same reasons we have addressed above (and found
unpersuasive) regarding independent claim 1. (App. Br. 12). Appellant
additionally contends:
Claim 5 additionally recites that an operator, included in
a query, “indicates that one or more rows are to be retrieved
from the table and that each row of the one or more rows is to
contain a value, in said column, nearer to the target value than
any other value, in said column, that is associated with a row
that is not of the one or more rows.” Each of the cited
references lacks any equivalent operator. The only operators
that Metzger discloses are the six comparison operators:
greater-than (>), less-than (<), greater-than-or-equal-to (>=),
less-than-or-equal-to (<=), equal-to (=), and not-equal-to (!=).
(See paragraph 49). None of these operators of Metzger indicate
(a) that one or more rows are to be retrieved from a table and
(b) that each row of the one or more rows is to contain a value,
in said column, nearer to the target value than any other value,
in said column, that is associated with a row that is not of the
one or more rows.
(App. Br. 13) (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner disagrees:
The] Examiner submits that Metzger teaches different
comparison operators that effectively perform the same goal of
finding the nearest value if no match is found, this is found in
paragraphs 49, 52, 57 - 59 and 63. Furthermore, Chowdhuri
discloses it [in] paragraphs 115 - 117 and Woo discloses this
Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
8
equivalent operator in paragraphs 11, 29 where when an equal
match is not found a near match search is conducted and the]
result is displayed.
(Ans. 11-12).
We observe that the disputed limitations of claim 5 essentially narrow
the “entries” of claim 1 to rows (i.e., records) that contain a value. Claim 5
also narrows over the scope of claim 1 by adding column (field) and column
reference limitations. However, given that these additional elements are
well known in the database art (as evidenced by Chowdhuri, paras. [0115-
0117]), on this record, we are not we persuaded that claim 5 covers anything
more than an arrangement of prior art elements with each element
performing the same function it had been known to perform. The Supreme
Court guides that such a combination of familiar elements is obvious. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
For these reasons, on this record we are not persuaded of Examiner
error. We sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 5.
Associated dependent claims 6-8 and 21-24 (not argued separately) fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Independent Claim 9
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
the following disputed limitations:
if the first leaf node does not include an entry that contains a
key value that is equal to the target value, then:

determining a nearest entry that contains a key value nearest to
the target value, wherein the nearest entry is included in an
adjacent leaf node that is linked to the first leaf node; and
Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
9

returning a row referenced by the nearest entry,
within the meaning of independent claim 9 (emphasis added)?
Regarding claim 9, Appellant contends:
Metzger cannot teach or suggest that a nearest entry is
determined, wherein the nearest entry is included in an adjacent
leaf node that is linked to the first leaf node. Chowdhuri also
fails to teach or suggest this feature of Claim 9. Again, Woo is
not related in any way to indexes. As a result, even if Metzger,
Chowdhuri, and Woo could be combined, the combination of
these references cannot teach or suggest this feature of Claim 9.
(App. Br. 15).

We observe that the Examiner essentially replicates the same response
previously presented for claims 1 and 5:
“[The] Examiner submits that Metzger teaches different
comparison operators that effectively perform the same goal of
finding the nearest value if no match is found, this is found in
paragraphs 49, 52, 57 - 59 and 63. Furthermore, Woo discloses
this equivalent operator in paragraphs 11, 29 where when an
equal match is not found a near match search is conducted ands
result is displayed.
(Ans. 12).
Relative to independent claims 1 and 5 (discussed above), claim 9
narrows the scope further, adding, inter alia, leaf node limitations and a key
value. We observe that Chowdhuri teaches the well known use of index key
values (para. [0116]), and the general use of B-Trees, where “p]ointers to
rows are usually stored in the leaf nodes of the tree.” (para. [0117]).
However, given the narrower scope of claim 9, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has not fully developed the record to show that
the following specific limitations are taught or suggested by the cited
references:
Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
10
if the first leaf node does not include an entry that contains a
key value that is equal to the target value, then:

determining a nearest entry that contains a key value nearest to
the target value, wherein the nearest entry is included in an
adjacent leaf node that is linked to the first leaf node; and

returning a row referenced by the nearest entry,

(Claim 9) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 9, and claims 10-13, and 25-29 which depend
therefrom.
Dependent Claim 2
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
the following disputed limitation: “said operands also include a particular
value that specifies a threshold number of entries,” within the meaning of
dependent claim 2 (emphasis added)?
Appellant contends that it is “unclear what element in these cited
paragraphs of Metzger could be equated to the recited particular value,
which is an operand of the recited operator. The Final Office Action lacks
specificity in this regard.” (App. Br. 16).
The Examiner disagrees:
The] Examiner submits that Metzger teaches different
comparison operators that effectively perform the same goal of
finding the nearest value if no match is found, this is found in
paragraphs 49, 51, 52, 57 - 59 and 63. In paragraphs 51 and 52
of Metzger, it is discloses how when more that nearly ordered
entry is found it is added to the result list in an orderly fashion.
Furthermore, Woo discloses this equivalent operator in
Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
11
paragraphs 11, 29 where when an equal match is not found a
near match search is conducted and] result is displayed.
(Ans. 12-13).
Although we agree that the Examiner’s response is lacking in clarity,
we are nevertheless of the view that the claimed particular value that
specifies a threshold number of entries (nearest to the target value) would
have been well within the knowledge and skill of an artisan at the time of
Appellant’s invention.
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim
2, and claim 18 (not argued separately) which depends therefrom. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Dependent Claim 3
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
the following disputed limitations: “returning a plurality of rows that
correspond to said plurality of entries; and ordering the plurality of rows
based on a distance function,” within the meaning of dependent claim 3
(emphasis added)?
Appellant acknowledges that Metzger teaches that new records in a
table may be ordered. (App. Br. 16). However, Appellant contends that “it
remains unclear what in these paragraphs could be equated to the recited
‘distance function.’” (App. Br. 17).
Turning to the Appellant’s Specification for context, we observe that
the disclosure merely gives an example (not a definition) of the claimed
distance function (“One type of distance function is an absolute difference
function . . .”) (Spec. 12, para. [0055]). Given that Appellant’s Specification
does not precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed disputed
Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
12
“distance function,” Appellant has not convinced us that the disputed
limitation would have been uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art, or represents an unobvious step over the prior art.
See Leapfrog Enters, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162. We
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 3, and
claim 19 (not argued separately) which depends therefrom. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Dependent Claim 4
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
the following disputed limitation: “wherein the distance function is the
absolute difference between the target value and the index value of each
entry in said plurality of entries,” within the meaning of dependent claim 4
(emphasis added)?
Appellant contends that “[e]ven if Metzger referred to a distance
function (which it doesn’t), Metzger fails to teach or suggest that a plurality
of rows are ordered based on the absolute difference between the target
value and an index value of each entry of a plurality of entries.” (App. Br.
17).
In contrast to our discussion of claim 3 above, here the distance
function is precisely defined in claim 4. Because the Examiner offers no
response that specifically addresses Appellant’s argued limitations for claim
4 (Ans. 12-13), we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4, and also
claim 20 which depends directly from claim 4.

Appeal 2010-002068
Application 11/388,300
13
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4,
9-13, 20, and 25-29.
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-3,
5-8, 15, 17-19, and 21-24, and 31.
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.
§ 41.50(f).

ORDER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

llw