Ex Parte Bloom et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 5, 2011

10987346 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 5, 2011)

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.
10/987,346 11/12/2004 Howard S. Bloom END920040154US1 7012
30449 7590 08/08/2011
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
EXAMINER
REYES, MARIELA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2011 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 HOWARD S. BLOOM, ROY FROEHLICH,
THOMAS A. JOBSON JR., EDITH A. KANYOCK,
CHARLES F. MATULA, and ARNOLD M. ROSENBERG
____________________

Appeal 2009-011379
Application 10/987,346
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and JASON V.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011379
Application 10/987,346
2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a rejection of
claims 1-24, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

The Appellants invented a method, system and program product for
rewriting SQL statements. Specification ¶ 0001.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A method for rewriting Structured Query Language (SQL)
statements:
[1] receiving a SQL statement having search criteria that
include conditions that pertain to a plurality of fields in a
plurality of database tables;
[2] creating a table from the SQL statement that lists all
possible combinations of the search criteria in the SQL
statement, every combination reflecting a subset of information
used to determine combined results;
[3] identifying a set of patterns among the all possible
combinations of the SQL statement based on the fields
referenced in the combinations, and sorting the table based on
the set of patterns;
[4] dividing the table into a set of temporary tables based on
the sorting;
[5] joining the set of temporary tables with the SQL
statement, and generating a new set of temporary tables, each
table consisting of results of a search conducted using a

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Dec. 8, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb.
19, 2009), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Aug. 11, 2008).
Appeal 2009-011379
Application 10/987,346
3
separate portion of the SQL statement as joined with the set of
temporary tables; and
[6] combining all results from the new set of temporary
tables into a single result table.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Pederson
Yalamanchi
US 5,864,842
US 7,107,282 B1
Jan. 26, 1999
Sep. 12, 2006

REJECTIONS2
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pederson and Yalamanchi. Ans. 3.

ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pederson and Yalamanchi
turns on whether the combination of Pederson and Yalamanchi teach or
suggest limitations [2], [3], and [4] of independent claim 1 and as recited in
claims 9, 16, 23, and 24.

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Pederson

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 24 under § 35 U.S.C.
101 as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Ans. 22.
Appeal 2009-011379
Application 10/987,346
4
01. Pederson is directed to the optimization of SQL queries in a
relational database management system using hash star join
operators. Pederson 1:7-10.
Yalamanchi
02. Yalamanchi is directed to techniques for managing conditional
expressions in database systems. Yalamanchi 1:22-24.
03. The database system issues an SQL command against a predicate
table to evaluate the expression set in conjunction with a data set.
A concatenated bitmap index is created on the columns of the
predicate table that corresponds to each XML attribute and XML
element, to execute an evaluation query efficiently. The bitmap
indexes function as a multi-dimensional index during the
expression set evaluation, and operates to filter expressions based
on multiple elements and attributes simultaneously. Yalamanchi
13:26-60.
04. The predicates in an expression set are classified into two sets.
The first set is predicates with indexed attributes. The second set
is predicates with other XML elements and attributes. A first
phase of evaluation narrows down the working set of expressions
in the first set by eliminating expressions that are conclusively
false. A second phase of evaluation evaluates expressions in the
smaller set that was minimized by the first phase. Yalamanchi
14:56-67 and 15:1-17.
Appeal 2009-011379
Application 10/987,346
5

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pederson and Yalamanchi
The Appellants first contend that the combination of Pederson and
Yalamanchi fail to teach or suggest limitations [2], [3] and [4] of claim 1 and
as recited in claims 9, 16, 23 and 24. App. Br. 9-17. We agree with the
Appellants.
Limitation [2] of claim 1 requires creating a table from the SQL
statement that lists all possible combinations of the search criteria in the
SQL statement. Limitation [3] requires identifying a set of patterns amongst
all possible combinations of the SQL statement and sorting the table based
on the set of patterns. Limitation [4] requires dividing the table into a set of
temporary tables based on the sorting.
The Examiner relies on Yalamanchi to describe these limtitations.
Ans. 4-5. Yalamanchi describes a database system. FF 02. Yalamanchi
describes that an SQL command is issued against the predicate table. FF 03.
The predicate table is the table that is queried for results. The predicate table
is not a table that lists all possible combinations of the search criteria. The
Examiner found that the predicate table includes a subset of information
used to execute the SQL statement. Ans. 19. However, the Examiner fails
to provide an explanation or rationale that illustrates the how the predicate
table includes all possible combinations of the SQL statement.
Furthermore, Yalamanchi fails to describe sorting the table based on a
set of patterns. Yalamanchi describes a first phase of evaluation narrows
down the working set of expressions in the first set by eliminating

Appeal 2009-011379
Application 10/987,346
6
expressions that are conclusively false. FF 04. However, the Examiner fails
to provide an evidence or rationale that illustrates how this narrowing down
of the working set is the same as sorting based on a set of patterns.
As such, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness.
The Appellants also contend that claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-22 are not
unpatentable over Pederson and Yalamanchi for the same reasons asserted in
support of claim 1. App. Br. 13-14. We agree with the Appellants. The
Appellants’ arguments were found to be persuasive supra and are found to
be persuasive here for the same reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pederson and Yalamanchi.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Pederson and Yalamanchi is not sustained.

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) (2009).

REVERSED

tj