Ex Parte Brobst

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2013

11281527 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN BROBST
____________

Appeal 2010-012525
Application 11/281,527
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-012525
Application 11/281,527

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-27. (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a technique for use in
executing a query in a database system. A database-management system
(DBMS) initiates execution of the query according to an initial query-
execution plan that identifies an expected path for execution. Then, at some
point after execution of the query has begun, the DBMS concludes that
execution has not proceeded along the expected path and, in response,
chooses an alternative query-execution plan for continued execution of the
query. (Spec. 2).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method for use in
executing a query in a database system, the method comprising:
initiating execution of the query according to an initial
query-execution plan that identifies an expected path for
execution of the query; and
at some point after execution of the query has begun:
concluding that execution of the query has not
proceeded along the expected path; and
in response, choosing an alternative query-
execution plan for continued execution of the query.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Appeal 2010-012525
Application 11/281,527

3
Graefe US 5,822,747 Oct. 13, 1998
Hirohata US Pat. App. Pub. No.: 2003/0061244 A1 Mar. 27, 2003
Hacigumus US Pat. App. Pub. No.: 2004/0243799 A1 Dec. 2, 2004

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable based upon the teachings of Hirohata, Graefe, and Hacigumus.
(Ans. 3-17).

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and we
will address Appellant's arguments thereto. (App. Br. 6-10). Appellant
argues that the three references applied against the claimed invention do not
teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations "at some point after execution of
the query has begun: concluding that execution of the query has not
proceeded along the expected path; and in response, choosing an alternative
query-execution plan for continued execution of the query." (App. Br. 7).
We agree with Appellant.
Appellant addresses each of the portions of the references relied upon
by the Examiner in the statement of the rejection and contends that the
references perform functions "prior to selection of an optimal plan for
execution." (App. Br. 8). We agree with Appellant.
The Examiner's statement of the rejection and responsive arguments
do not squarely address Appellant's main contention. Therefore, Appellant
has shown error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness, and we cannot
Appeal 2010-012525
Application 11/281,527

4
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its respective dependent
claims for the reasons set forth by Appellant.
Independent claims 12, 16, and 27 contain similar limitations
therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of these independent claims and
their respective dependent claims.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. §103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-27 is reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh