Ex parte Brown

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 19, 1998

08028627 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 19, 1998)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ANTHONY P.G. BROWN
_______________
Appeal No. 95-1998
Application 08/028,6271
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and KRASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claim 10, the only claim pending.
The invention pertains to a data base management system and,
more particularly, to the optimization of search queries in such
a system.
Claim 10 is reproduced as follows:
10. A database system comprising:
(a) data storage means for storing a database

1 Application for patent filed March 9, 1993. According to
appellant, this application is a continuation of Application
07/625,070, filed December 10, 1990.
Appeal No. 95-1998
Application No. 08/028,627
2
comprising a sequence of records, each record comprising a
plurality of record fields,
(b) a host computer for generating a search query
comprising a logical combination of comparison operations in
a predetermined order, at least some of said comparison
operations comprising a comparison between a predetermined
search key and a predetermined record field.
(c) compilation means in the host computer, for pre-
processing the search query by changing the order of said
comparison operations within said logical combination, to
thereby generate a modified search query comprising said
logical combination of comparison operations in a modified
order, with a substantially minimized expected cost of
applying said modified search query to any individual one of
said records, and
(d) dedicated search processor means, connected to the
host computer and to the data storage means, for receiving
the modified search query from the host computer and for
applying said modified search query to each individual
record in the database in turn to determine which of the
records satisfy said modified search query.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Harrington et al. 4,901,232 Feb. 13, 1990
(Harrington)
Tsuchida et al. 5,091,852 Feb. 25, 1992
(Tsuchida) (filed Jan. 25, 1989)
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(e) as
anticipated by Tsuchida. In addition, as per a new ground of
rejection entered in the answer, claim 10 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over Tsuchida in view of
Harrington.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 95-1998
Application No. 08/028,627
3
OPINION
We reverse.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(e),
anticipation requires that each element of the claim in issue be
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
We do not find, in Tsuchida, the presence of, and the
examiner admits as much [answer-page 4], the claimed
rearrangement of the order of comparison operations within the
logical combination to generate a modified search query so that
there is a substantially minimized expected cost of applying the
modified search query to any individual one of the records. The
examiner bases his finding of such on “inherency.” More
particularly, the examiner states, at page 4 of the answer, that
“when a procedure is selected based upon accessing index of one
of the columns [in Tsuchida], inherently, the comparison for the
particular column would have been executed first because that is
the first piece of information provided to the system.”
We do not agree with the examiner’s finding of “inherency.”
Tsuchida is interested in choosing a particular processing
procedure which leads to optimization. However, once that
procedure is chosen, while it may affect the order in which
Appeal No. 95-1998
Application No. 08/028,627
4
records are selected, there is no teaching or suggestion in
Tsuchida that the order in which comparisons are performed within
each individual record is affected in any way or that this would
be inherently so.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(e) as anticipated by Tsuchida.
Turning now to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
' 103, we also will not sustain this rejection. The examiner
applies Tsuchida in the same manner as in the anticipation
rejection but now relies on Harrington for teaching the
rearranging of the order of received commands in order to select
a more efficient sequence of commands which optimize the overall
operation effect [answer-page 5]. The examiner takes the
position that the claimed comparison operations within a logical
expression, which the examiner still contends is taught by
Tsuchida, constitutes a “sequence of commands.” The examiner
then concludes that it would have been “obviousYto apply the
resequencing of commands in Harrington to the comparisons in
Tsuchida because Harrington… provide[s] the solution for the
problem recognized by TsuchidaYwhich would yield a better
optimized search and increase the throughput of the search
system” [answer-pages 5-6].
Harrington does, indeed, teach the rearranging of the
execution of commands, and appellant concedes this point at page
Appeal No. 95-1998
Application No. 08/028,627
5
2 of the reply brief. However, we agree with appellant that
there is nothing in Harrington suggesting that these commands
involve comparison operations or that the commands consist of any
logical combination, as required by the instant claim.
Accordingly, even if the references are combined, one would not
arrive at the claimed subject matter. Moreover, as appellant
points out, at page 2 of the reply brief, since Harrington is
directed to solving problems of controlling communication between
a host computer and I/O devices, while Tsuchida is interested in
optimizing query processing in relational databases, there would
appear to have been no reason for the artisan to apply the
teachings of Harrington to the system of Tsuchida. The examiner
never comes to grips with this argument.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal No. 95-1998
Application No. 08/028,627
6
' 102(e) and under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Kenneth W. Hairston ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-1998
Application No. 08/028,627
7
Lee, Mann, Smith, McWilliams
Sweeney & Ohlson
P.O. Box 2786
Chicago, IL 60690-2786