Ex Parte Chaves et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 11, 2013

11775462 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL CHAVES, KASTURI BELUR,
SCOTT SHELTON, and HENRY FU
____________________

Appeal 2011-002967
Application 11/775,462
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002967
Application 11/775,462

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3 and 5-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 4
has been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system and method
to facilitate non-equijoins of data. Metadata, describing relationships
between database tables, is held in a data store and used by a query generator
to build query statements including one or more non-equijoin. (Abstract).

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system comprising:

a processor;

a data storage device;

a database, stored on the data storage device, to hold
tables of data including columns and rows; and

a data store, stored on the data storage device, to hold
metadata describing relationships between tables, the
relationships including one or more non-equijoins of
tables in the form of one or more table-column pairs of a
first table being non-equal to one or more table-column
pairs of a second table;

a query generator executable by the processor to:

Appeal 2011-002967
Application 11/775,462

3
receive a data request from a requestor, the data
request including a request for a first table column
in view of the one or more columns of the second
table for which a non-equijoin is described in the
metadata; and

build a query statement including a representation
of the non-equijoin.

REFERENCES
Luo U.S. 6,804,678 B1 Oct. 12, 2004
Mittal U.S. 2006/0253414 A1 Nov. 9, 2006

REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mittal and Luo (Ans. 3-11).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-3 and 5-20
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Mittal and Luo
because the cited references do not teach or suggest “a data store, stored on
the data storage device, to hold metadata describing relationships between
tables, the relationships including one or more non-equijoins of tables in the
form of one or more table-column pairs of a first table being non-equal to
Appeal 2011-002967
Application 11/775,462

4
one or more table-column pairs of a second table” (App. Br. 11-12
(emphasis omitted)). Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner’s
rationale in combining the band join in Luo with Mittal is problematic
because the point of aggregation described in Mittal is to avoid processing
range queries (band joins) (App. Br. 12). According to Appellants, Mittal
uses a range query, but the range query is performed on pre-calculated
snapshots to produce an intermediate snapshot (App. Br. 13). Therefore,
Appellants contend Mittal does not describe “relationships between tables”
(id.). Further, Appellants argue the data helper table does not describe the
relationship, but instead facilitates processing dates when a table is queried
by the facility (App. Br. 14).

Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Mittal
and Luo teaches or suggests “a data store, stored on the data storage device,
to hold metadata describing relationships between tables, the relationships
including one or more non-equijoins of tables in the form of one or more
table-column pairs of a first table being non-equal to one or more table-
column pairs of a second table” or “build a query statement including a
representation of the non-equijoin” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own. We
further emphasize the following points.
Appellants appear to be arguing the references individually, when the
Examiner is relying on the combined teachings of Mittal and Luo (Ans. 4-7
Appeal 2011-002967
Application 11/775,462

5
and 13-15). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Mittal as teaching the
relationships including one or more non-equijoins of tables and Luo as
teaching the recited form (Ans. 4 and 6-7).
Additionally, Appellants argue the point of aggregation in Mittal is to
avoid actually processing range queries (App. Br. 12). We are not
persuaded. Mittal discusses various embodiments, one of which eliminates
the range queries by pre-computing or materializing the range queries (see
e.g., pg. 3, [0035] (“In some embodiments . . . .”)). Thus, Mittal does not
avoid processing range queries. Therefore, in light of the Examiner’s
articulated reason for combining the teachings, we are not persuaded “there
is no reason, need, or motivation to add Luo to Mittal if Mittal has
eliminated the need for range queries” (App. Br. 12).
Furthermore, whether the range queries are pre-computed is not
relevant as the limitations recited in the claim do not preclude such a pre-
computation. Specifically, claim 1 recites “a data store . . . to hold metadata
describing relationships between tables . . . .” We further note the
particulars of the data store are not recited; therefore, the metadata could be
stored in various locations in the data store. We also agree with the
Examiner that Mittal teaches “[t]he relationship may be defined through
metadata. For example, for a banking application, one table may be for the
bank address, another table for account balance, still another table for
account holder information, etc.” (pg. 2, [0032]). Thus, Mittal teaches the
relationship between the tables is defined through metadata.
Claim 1 also recites “build a query statement including a
representation of the non-equijoin.” We emphasize Appellants have not
defined “representation” in their Specification and the limitation does not
Appeal 2011-002967
Application 11/775,462

6
recite that the metadata is used in building the query statement. Thus,
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
findings.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Mittal and Luo teaches or suggests “a data store, stored on
the data storage device, to hold metadata describing relationships between
tables, the relationships including one or more non-equijoins of tables in the
form of one or more table-column pairs of a first table being non-equal to
one or more table-column pairs of a second table” or “build a query
statement including a representation of the non-equijoin,” as recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited independent claims 8 and
15. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-20, were not separately
argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Mittal and Luo.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mittal and Luo is affirmed.

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

msc