Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2010

10977765 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2010)

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.
10/977,765 10/29/2004 Richard D. Dettinger ROC920040119US1 1301
7590 07/29/2010
William J. McGinnis
IBM Corporation, Dept. 917
3605 Highway 52 North
Rochester, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
SMITH, GARRETT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2010 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 RICHARD D. DETTINGER, TRAVIS M. DRUCKER,
BRIAN R. MURAS, and JEFFERY W. TENNER
__________

Appeal 2009-002107
Application 10/977,765
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-002107
Application 10/977,765

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to database query optimization techniques
(Spec. 1, ¶ [0002]).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for providing access to data in an
environment of multiple data repositories, comprising:
providing, for a requesting entity, a data abstraction
model comprising a plurality of logical fields for
composing abstract queries;
for each of the plurality of logical fields, providing an
access method which specifies at least a method for
accessing the data, wherein at least one logical field
provides query optimization data for optimizing at least
one of an abstract query composed using the logical
fields of the data abstraction model and a corresponding
resolved query contribution generated from the at least
one logical field;
providing a runtime component configured to receive an
abstract query composed from the plurality of logical
fields, including the at least one logical field, and in
response, (i) to generate a query contribution for each
logical field included in the abstract query, (ii) to merge
the query contributions into the resolved query, and (iii)
Appeal 2009-002107
Application 10/977,765

3
to optimize the query contribution for the at least one
logical field, based on the optimization data; and
storing the data abstraction model, the plurality of logical
fields, and the query optimization data associated with
the at least one logical field on a computer-readable
storage medium.
Reference
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence in
support of the rejection:
Cazemier US 6,609,123 B1 Aug. 19, 2003
Rejection
Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Cazemier.
ISSUES
Issue 1
Appellants argue that the data abstraction model and query
specification limitations represent “a user’s substantive view of data, which
is interposed between a user and the underlying physical representation of
the data” (App. Br. 13).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Cazemier teaches a data
abstraction model comprising a plurality of logical fields and providing for
each logical field an access method?
Appeal 2009-002107
Application 10/977,765

4
Issue 2
Appellants argue that Cazemier’s “‘query specification 1004’ is not a
logical field provided by a data abstraction model that includes query
optimization data” (App. Br. 16).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Cazemier teaches at least
one logical field that provides optimization data?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. Cazemier discloses that a “metadata model is composed of several
layers, namely, a physical layer or data access layer 102, a business
layer 104 and a presentation layer or package layer 106” (col. 7,
ll. 57-59).
2. Cazemier discloses that “data access layer 102 contains a part of
the model objects that directly describe actual physical data in the
data sources 100 and their relationships. These model objects may
be called data access model objects” (col. 8, ll. 9-12).
3. Cazemier discloses that “the data access layer 102 may allow users
to define therein data source queries, such as SQL queries. Data
source queries return a result set of physical data from underlying
data sources 100” (col. 8, ll. 35-38).
4. Cazemier discloses that “data access model objects may include,
among other things, databases, catalogues, schemas, tables, files,
Appeal 2009-002107
Application 10/977,765

5
columns, data access keys, indexes and data access joins” (col. 8,
ll. 12-15).
5. Cazemier discloses that “[a]n index is a database structure used to
optimize query performance by organizing the contents of
specified columns into structures that facilitate quick searching”
(col. 13, ll. 51-54).
6. The Specification discloses that
[w]ith the appropriate optimization metadata, this abstract query
may be optimized in a number of ways:
• Start with Males because it is the smaller table
• Start with Males because it is known that there are only
two values in the gender field (i.e., M or F)
• Start with the RareTestX condition because its only 1 of
5000 values
(pp. 25-26, ¶ [0071]).
7. The Specification discloses that “[m]any other query optimization
techniques may be employed by embedding information within the
logical fields of an abstract database and data repository
abstraction component” (p. 32, ¶ [0082]).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim interpretation
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations. . . . [L]imitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). A claim meaning is reasonable if one of
Appeal 2009-002107
Application 10/977,765

6
ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim, read in light of the
specification, to encompass the meaning. See In re American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Any special
meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification
that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person
of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v.
Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that Cazemier teaches
the claimed data abstraction model. Based on Appellants’ arguments in the
Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal of claims 1-32 with respect to issue
1 on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Cazemier teaches a
metadata model composed of several layers, including a data access layer
(FF 1). Cazemier teaches that this data access layer contains a part of the
model objects that describe data and data relationships (FF 2). Cazemier
further teaches that the data access layer may allow users to define data
Appeal 2009-002107
Application 10/977,765

7
source queries, which are used to return a result set of data (FF 3).
Therefore, Cazemier teaches a data abstraction model (metadata model with
several layers) comprising a plurality of logical fields (data access model
objects) and providing for each logical field an access method (data source
queries).
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-32
which fall therewith with respect to this issue.
Issue 2
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that Cazemier teaches a
logical field that provides optimization data. Based on Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal of claims 1-32 with
respect to issue 2 on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner offers that “[a]n example of query optimization data is
an index of a table” (Ans. 13). Appellants argue that this is insufficient
because “the indexes provide an indication of what ranges of records are
stored by rows of a physical database table” (Reply Br. 4).
We find that Appellants’ efforts to exclude indexes as anticipatory of
optimization data are unpersuasive. The Specification’s own examples of
optimization metadata include details about the data contained in a table,
such as the size of a table and the set of values in a field (FF 6).
Furthermore, the Specification makes clear that many other query
optimization techniques may be employed (FF 7). Therefore, we find that a
reasonably broad interpretation of query optimization data includes indexes.
Appeal 2009-002107
Application 10/977,765

8
Cazemier teaches that data access model objects may include indexes
(FF 2, 4). Cazemier further teaches that an index is a database structure used
to optimize query performance (FF 5). Therefore, Cazemier teaches at least
one logical field (data access model objects) that provides (that include)
optimization data (indexes).
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-32
which fall therewith with respect to this issue.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we find no
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s findings:
1. that Cazemier teaches a data abstraction model comprising a
plurality of logical fields and providing for each logical field an access
method (issue 1); and
2. that Cazemier teaches at least one logical field that provides
optimization data (issue 2).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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).

Appeal 2009-002107
Application 10/977,765

9
AFFIRMED

msc

William J. McGinnis
IBM Corporation, Dept. 917
3605 Highway 52 North
Rochester, MN 55901-7829