Ex Parte Abdo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 14, 201412120994 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STA 1ES p A 1ENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121120,994 05/15/2008 37691 7590 10/16/2014 WOOD, HERRON & EV ANS, L.L.P. (IBM) 2700 CAREW TOWER 441 VINE STREET CINCINNATI, OH 45202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Abdo Esmail Abdo UNITED STA TES 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. ROC920030216US2 6024 EXAMINER COLAN, GIOVANNA B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2615 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/16/2014 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): usptodock@whe-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ABDO ESMAIL ABDO and TRAVIS MICHAEL DRUCKER Appeal2012-004757 Application 12/120,994 Technology Center 2600 Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejectionofclaims 1-11and13. Wehavejurisdictionunder35U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. In reaching the decision, we have considered only the arguments Appellants actually raised. Arguments Appellants did not make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (2011). Appeal2012-004757 Application 12/120,994 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to database management. See generally Spec., 1. Claim 11 is exemplary: 11. A program product for implementing a relational database system and generating a statistic for a pattern matching predicate on an attribute of a relation of said relational database, to be used in optimizing execution of a query directed to one or more attributes of said relation, comprising a relational database, including a relation having a plurality of tuples including values for a plurality of attributes, a data storage structure storing character statistics on an attribute, comprising a first structure storing, for each of a plurality of character positions, frequently occurring characters in that character position, and statistics for each frequently occurring character, and relational database software performing query optimization and query execution upon said relational database, said query optimization including generating a statistic for an attribute of said relation by retrieving said statistics in response to said pattern matching predicate based upon the character positions of characters in said pattern matching predicate, and generating said statistic based upon said retrieved character statistics, and a signal bearing physical media holding said relational database and relational database software. THE REJECTIONS Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Potter (US 5,546,575; Aug. 13, 1996). 2 Appeal2012-004757 Application 12/120,994 Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Potter and Clark (US 5,455,576; Oct. 3, 1995). ISSUES Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, has the Examiner erred by rejecting claims 11 and 13 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter? Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding Potter discloses said query optimization including generating said statistic for an attribute of said relation by retrieving said statistics in response to said pattern matching predicate based upon the character positions of characters in said pattern matching predicate as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS THE NONSTATUTORY REJECTION On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11 and 13. Appellants assert "the claims at issue clearly recite a 'manufacture' and/or a 'composition of matter."' App. Br. 5. Appellants contend the claims recite a physical media instead of a signal, and a propagating signal by its nature has no physicality. See App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 1. Appellants fail to persuade us of error because Appellants do not provide any analysis or support for the assertion that "the claims at issue clearly recite a 'manufacture' and/or a 'composition of matter,"' and such assertion is merely unsupported attorney argument. Further, Appellants do 3 Appeal2012-004757 Application I2/120,994 not cite any support for the assertion that "a propagating signal by its nature has no physicality," and such assertion is again merely unsupported attorney argument. While not relied on for our analysis, we note contrary to Appellants' unsupported assertion, the Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms defines a signal as "[t]he physical representation of data" and "the physical embodiment of a message" (emphases added). Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, p. I 04 7 (7th edition, 2000). As a result, merely asserting the claims recite ''physical media" does not automatically place the claims within the statutory patentable categories. Because Appellants fail to demonstrate claims I I and I 3 belong to any of the four patentable categories of 35 U.S.C. § IOI-process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 11 and I3. See 35 U.S.C. § IOI. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Potter discloses "said query optimization including generating said statistic for an attribute of said relation by retrieving said statistics in response to said pattern matching predicate based upon the character positions of characters in said pattern matching predicate," as recited in 4 Appeal2012-004757 Application 12/120,994 - - - - - . 1 -- - - - - - - - - - independent claim 1.' The Examiner cites Potter's sections from columns 3, 14-15, and 18. See Ans. 8-9, 18-19. But the Examiner does not adequately explain, and we do not see, how the cited Potter portions disclose "generating ... statistic," let alone "said query optimization including generating said statistic for an attribute of said relation by retrieving said statistics in response to said pattern matching predicate based upon the character positions of characters in said pattern matching predicate," as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11, and 13. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION We also do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 10. The Examiner cites an additional reference for those claims. Because the Examiner does not rely on the additional reference for the disputed claim limitation, the additional reference does not remedy the deficiencies discussed above. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed. 1 Appellants raise additional arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection based on prior art. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103, we do not reach the additional arguments. 5 Appeal2012-004757 Application 12/120,994 The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11and13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART dw 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation