Ex Parte Bestgen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 201611962980 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111962,980 12/21/2007 130683 7590 03/17/2016 Middleton Reutlinger (IBMP) 401 S. 4th Street, Suite 2600 Louisville, KY 40202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert Joseph Bestgen 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. ROC920070123US 1 9149 EXAMINER DAV ANLOU, SOHEILA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2016 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): usptomail@middletonlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte ROBERT JOSEPH BESTGEN, DAVID GLENN CARLSON, ROBERT VICTOR DOWNER, and SHANTAN KETHIREDDY Appeal2014-002703 Application 11/962,980 Technology Center 2100 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-25, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is International Business Machines Corp. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal2014-002703 Application 11/962,980 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' disclosed "invention relates to computers and data processing, and more particularly databases and database queries." (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A method of performing a query of a database, the method compnsmg: receiving a database query, the database query including first and second operations respectively configured to generate first and second disjoint results sets from a dataspace; analyzing the database query to identify a set of attributes from the dataspace that are used by at least one of the first and second operations in the database query; and during execution of the database query, iteratively processing a plurality of records from the dataspace in a single pass, including, for each of the plurality of records, processing such record by retrieving the plurality of attributes for such record from the dataspace and performing each of the first and second operations on the record using the retrieved attributes for such record to build the first and second disjoint results sets. The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-20, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Raz (US 2006/0288045 Al; Dec. 21, 2006) and Trotta (US 2003/0023620 Al; Jan. 30, 2003). (See Final Act 4-- 15.) Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Raz, Trotta, and Mamou et al. (US 2006/0069717 Al; Mar. 30, 2006; hereinafter "Mamou"). (See Final Act. 15-17.) Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App. Br." filed July 3, 2013; "Reply Br." filed Dec. 17, 2013) and the 2 Appeal2014-002703 Application 11/962,980 Specification ("Spec." filed Dec. 21, 2007) for the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed Mar. 5, 2013 and Answer ("Ans." mailed Oct. 17, 2013) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. ISSUE The dispositive issue presented by Appellants' contentions is as follows: 2 Does the combination of Raz and Trotta, and in particular does Trotta, teach or suggest during execution of the database query, iteratively processing a plurality of records from the dataspace in a single pass, including, for each of the plurality of records, processing such record by retrieving the plurality of attributes for such record from the dataspace and performing each of the first and second operations on the record using the retrieved attributes for such record to build the first and second disjoint results sets (hereinafter the "iteratively processing limitation"), as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Trotta teaches the iteratively processing limitation of claim 1. (Final Act. 6 (citing Trotta i-f 72); see also Ans. 2-7 (additionally citing Trotta i-fi-1 58, 71 ). ) The Examiner explains Trotta teaches the building of procedure which involves the performing a full table scan because the matching criteria in the prior art suggest that it's checking every data and outputting what matched, so while it doesn't says [sic] it did a full table scan it has to analyze all of the data according to the match definitions and gathering the matched variables. 2 Appellants' contentions present additional issues. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues. 3 Appeal2014-002703 Application 11/962,980 (Ans. 4.) Appellants contend that nowhere in [Trotta's] media identification process ... is there a single pass performed through a dataspace, where for each record processed in that single pass two different operations are performed on a plurality of attributes from the record to build two different disjoint results sets, as is required by claim 1. (App. Br. 11 (referring to Trotta i-fi-161-76, Fig. 6).) Appellants further contend "Trotter [sic] ... altogether avoids performing any actions that could be analogized to first and second operations, as well as generating multiple results sets, since Trotter [sic] is directed to performing a search through an index to identify a matching primary key." (Id.) We agree with Appellants for the reasons stated by Appellants. Even agreeing with the Examiner, arguendo and without deciding, that Trotta teaches "checking every data and outputting what matched," Trotta teaches doing so to build "special match definition tables . . . pre-generated within the data set" (Trotta i1 72), and not during execution of the database query, as recited in claim 1. Trotta teaches that the database query is executed against the match definition tables "via examination of only the primary key of the table" (id. (emphasis added)). Therefore, we agree with Appellants that [claim 1] recite[s] in part that the iterative processing of the plurality of records from the dataspace in a single pass is performed "during execution of the database query," and includes processing each record by "retrieving [a] plurality of attributes for such record from the dataspace and performing each of . . . first and second operations on the record using the retrieved attributes for such record to build ... first and second disjoint results sets." The Examiner, on the other hand, appears to be relying on operations in Trotta that either occur ( 1) prior to 4 Appeal2014-002703 Application 11/962,980 execution of a database query (the generation of match definition tables used by the pre-built procedure) or (2) outside of a database system. (Reply Br. 4 (ellipses in original).) Appellants have demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1, independent claims 10 and 18, which recite limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and which were rejected on substantially the same bases as claim 1 (see Final Act. 10, 12-13), and claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-25, which depend from, and incorporate the limitations of, claims 1, 10, and 18 respectively. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-25 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation