Ex Parte Fuh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 13, 2012

10418442 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte YOU-CHIN FUH and NAMIK HRLE
_____________

Appeal 2009-013269
Application 10/418,442
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, computer readable medium,
and device for processing database queries by generating an access plan
Appeal 2009-013269
Application 10/418,442

2
using a comparison of stored hints and a query identification. See generally
Spec. 6-7. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below:
1. A method of processing a query in a database
management system that generates an access plan to retrieve
desired data from computer storage in response to the query, the
method comprising:
deriving a query identification from at least a portion of a
received query or representation thereof, wherein said query
identification identifies said query;
accessing a repository of stored hints and finding a hint
associated with the query identification and stored in the
repository, the hint found by matching said query identification
to a hint identification that identifies the hint; and
generating the access plan in consideration of the hint
associated with said query identification.

REFERENCES
Madrid US 5,717,911 Feb. 10, 1998

Kaluskar US 6,985,904 B1 Jan. 10, 2006
(filed Feb. 28, 2002)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-22, and 24-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Kaluskar. Ans. 4-6.
Claims 2, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kaluskar and Madrid. Ans. 6-7.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that Kaluskar discloses the following
limitations of claim 1:
Appeal 2009-013269
Application 10/418,442

3
a) Accessing a repository of stored hints and finding a hint associated
with the query identification and stored in the repository, the hint
found by matching said query identification to a hint identification
that identifies the hint? and
b) Generating the access plan in consideration of the hint associated with
said query?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-22, and 24-33
Claim 1 requires finding a hint in a repository of stored hints that
matches a query identification. We select claim 1 as representative of the
group comprising claims 1, 3-12, 14-22, and 24-33 since Appellants do not
separately argue claims 3-12, 14-22, and 24-33 with particularity. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The Examiner finds that Kaluskar’s execution plan for a
SQL statement is the same as the claimed hint since it is found in a memory
pool of execution plans and is matched to a hash value that represents the
query identification. Ans. 7. We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s finding is incorrect, arguing
that according to Appellants’ Specification and to one skilled in the art, the
term “hint” is “a comment or instruction that is inserted in a query so that
certain aspects of the access path for retrieval are specified for the
optimizer.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Appellants’ Specification, pg. 4, ll. 16-18).
In reviewing this portion of Appellants’ Specification, which is located in
the Background of the Invention Section, we do not find that the claim term
“hint” is specifically defined. Rather, Appellants’ Specification merely
provides one possible interpretation of the term. However, the Specification
does not require the term to be interpreted as such. As a result, the
Appeal 2009-013269
Application 10/418,442

4
Examiner’s interpretation that a “hint” includes the execution plan for a SQL
statement is broad but reasonable. Ans. 7.
Claim 1 also recites “generating the access plan in consideration of
the hint associated with said query identification.” Appellants argue that
Kaluskar does not disclose this limitation because Kaluskar’s execution plan
was previously generated. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5. The Examiner finds that
Kaluskar discloses an optimizer that uses literal values or constants that are
inputted by a user with the existing execution plan to “generate” a
customized execution plan. Ans. 8. As such, the Examiner finds that this
meets the disputed limitation. Ans. 8. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding.1
Appellants also argue that Kaluskar does not disclose the disputed
limitation because Kaluskar’s execution plan is not a “hint,” as recited in the
claim. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5. As discussed above, we find the Examiner’s
interpretation that the term “hint” includes an execution plan to be
reasonable. Thus, we do not agree with Appellants.
Lastly, Appellants argue that Kaluskar does not disclose the disputed
limitation because Kaluskar’s execution plan may have changed and may
not be the most efficient. App. Br. 6. We do not find this argument to be
commensurate in scope with the claim since the claim does not require that
the generated plan be the most efficient.
For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 3-12, 14-22, and 24-33.

1 We also note that the term “generating the access plan” does not require
creating a new access plan. A broad and reasonable interpretation of this
limitation would include providing an already created access plan for use in
the system.
Appeal 2009-013269
Application 10/418,442

5
Claims 2, 13, and 23
Appellants make the same arguments with respect to claims 2, 13, and
23 as with claim 1. App. Br. 7-9. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Kaluskar discloses
a) Accessing a repository of stored hints and finding a hint
associated with the query identification and stored in the
repository, the hint found by matching said query identification to
a hint identification that identifies the hint; and
b) Generating the access plan in consideration of the hint associated
with said query.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-33 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).
AFFIRMED

msc