Ex Parte Fukuda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2014

11926504 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TAKESHI FUKUDA, RYOJI KUROSAWA, and
MASAHIRO OHKAWA
____________________

Appeal 2011-010326
Application 11/926,5041
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–13, 16–19, 21, and 22.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2

1 The real party in interest, identified by Appellants, is International
Business Machines Corporation (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-010326
Application 11/926,504

2
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A system comprising:
[(a)] one or more machine readable media encoded
with,
a first virtual table corresponding to a first data;
a second virtual table corresponding to a second
data;
a common table that is associated with the first and
second virtual tables;
a list with information about associations between
the first and second virtual tables and the
common table;
[(b]) a generating section that,
[(1)] accesses the list to determine the common
table is associated with the first virtual table
and the second virtual table,
[(2)] rewrites a received database query, which
indicates the common table, to generate a
first rewritten database query to indicate the
first virtual table instead of the common
table and to generate a second rewritten
database query to indicate the second virtual
table instead of the common table,
[(3)] generates a plurality of access plans that
include at least a first access plan for the
first rewritten database query and at least a
second access plan for the second rewritten
database query, wherein each of the plurality
of access plans are for either the first
rewritten database query or the second
rewritten database query; and

2 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
March 7, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 25, 2011), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 25, 2011).
Appeal 2011-010326
Application 11/926,504

3
[(c)] a selecting section that selects one of the plurality
of access plans generated by the generating section.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Witkowski (US 7,379,933 B1, iss. May 27, 2008), Folkert
(US 2005/0235003 A1, pub. Oct. 20, 2005), and Chaudhuri (US 5,544,355,
iss. Aug. 6, 1996).
Claims 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Witkowski, Folkert, Chaudhuri, Andrei (US 6,618,719 B1, iss. Sept. 9,
2003), and Mitchell (US 2007/00094237 A1, pub. Apr. 26, 2007).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Witkowski, Folkert, Chaudhuri, and Larson (US 2005/0210010 A1,
pub. Sept. 22, 2005).
Claims 16–18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cochrane (US 6,496,828 B1, iss. Dec. 17, 2002), Folkert,
Witkowski, and Chaudhuri.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cochrane, Witkowski, Folkert, Chaudhuri, Andrei, and Mitchell.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, and 9
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, and 9 as a group (App. Br. 6–8).
We select claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appeal 2011-010326
Application 11/926,504

4
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Witkowski, on which the Examiner relies, does
not disclose or suggest a generating section that rewrites a database query
into two rewritten queries, i.e., limitation (b)(1), as recited in claim 1. More
particularly, Appellants assert that “Witkowski discloses rewriting a query
Q1 as either Q1’ or Q1’’, but does not disclose or suggest rewriting a
database query into both Q1’ and Q1’’ (App. Br. 7). In other words,
according to Appellants, Q1’’ is not a second rewritten query, but merely an
alternative query to Q1’ (App. Br. 7–8).
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Witkowski
discloses the argued limitation. But we do not agree with Appellants that
this error on the part of the Examiner is basis for reversing the rejection of
claim 1 under § 103(a) because we find that Chaudhuri discloses rewriting a
query into two rewritten queries, and selecting one of the rewritten queries
for execution, which meets the claim language.
Chaudhuri discloses a “relational database management system which
includes [a] method and apparatus for optimizing queries that invoke foreign
functions.” (Chaudhuri, col. 4, ll. 33–35). Chaudhuri describes that the
“optimization approach of the invention is to first generate 22 a set of
equivalent queries (Step 1), and then choose 24 the cheapest among the
optimal plans for each query obtained (Step 2).” (Chaudhuri, col. 10, ll. 41–
44). Specifically, Chaudhuri discloses beginning with a query, and applying
rewrite rules to “cause a set of equivalent queries (closure) to be produced”
(Chaudhuri, col. 10, ll. 37–39). Thus, for example, “if Ql and Q2 are the
only two queries in the closure, one can determine the optimal plans P1 and
Appeal 2011-010326
Application 11/926,504

5
P2 for Q1 and Q2 respectively, and then select the cheaper plan of P1 and P2”
(Chaudhuri, col. 14, ll. 22–25).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejection of claims 2,
4–6, 8, and 9, which fall with claim 1. Because our rationale differs from
that set forth by the Examiner, we denominate our affirmance as a new
ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Dependent claim 13
Appellants do not present any arguments in support of the
patentability of dependent claim 13 except to assert that claim 13 is
allowable based on its dependence on independent claim 1 (App. Br. 9).
We are not persuaded, for the reasons outlined above, that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claims 10 and 11
Appellants do not present any argument in support of the patentability
of claim 10 or claim 11. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claim 12
Claim 12 depends indirectly from claim 1, and recites “wherein once
the unavailable first data has become available again, the managing section
enables those of the plurality [of] access plans that were disabled and that
were generated for the first rewritten database query.”
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because none of the cited
Appeal 2011-010326
Application 11/926,504

6
references discloses or suggests enabling an access plan when data becomes
available, as required by claim 12 (App. Br. 8–9).
The Examiner relies on “routine maintenance,” as described in
paragraphs 17 and 23 of Mitchell, and enabling disabled access plans, as
described in Andrei at column 44, line 45, column 46, line 24 (Ans. 12),
column 2, line 17, and column 47, lines 21-32 (Ans. 28). The Examiner
explains “Mitchell is relied upon to teach enabling and disabling a database
system and Andrei is relied upon to teach enabling/disabling an AP due to a
status of a server . . . .” (Ans. 29).
Mitchell discloses dual databases and monitoring the current state of
applications, resources and events in the database systems to ensure that the
database systems can provide “high availability” even when one of the
systems is unavailable. (Mitchell, ¶¶ 17, 23). But we can find nothing in the
cited paragraphs that discloses or suggests enabling a disabled access plan,
as called for in claim 12. We also can find no such disclosure or suggestion
in the cited portions of Andrei.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Independent claims 16 and 21 and dependent claims 17, 18, and 22
Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 16 and 21 are
substantially similar to Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 (App.
Br. 9–10). We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive with respect to
claim 1, and we find them equally unpersuasive with respect to claims 16
and 21. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 16 and 21 for the same reasons as set forth above with
respect to claim 1. For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejection of
Appeal 2011-010326
Application 11/926,504

7
claims 17 and 18 and claim 22, which depend from claims 16 and 21,
respectively, and were not argued separately.
Dependent claim 19
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because none of the cited
references discloses or suggests “setting [the] status of an access plan to
disabled if the status of the first database system is unavailable,” as recited
in claim 19 (App. Br. 11).
The Examiner cites Mitchell, paragraphs 4, 5 (Ans. 24), and 23
(Ans. 30), and also relies on paragraph 17 of Mitchell (Ans. 12) and Andrei,
column 2, line 17, column 44, lines 60–61, column 47 lines 21–26 and 29,
(Ans. 24, 28), as disclosing the argued limitation.
Mitchell discloses a distributed database system in which requests
intended for a database system that is unavailable are rerouted to another of
the database systems for processing; state information also is stored to
indicate the operational state, i.e., availability or unavailability, of each of
the database systems. (Mitchell, ¶¶ 4, 5). Mitchell also discloses dual
database systems and monitoring the state of the systems in order to provide
“high availability” even when one of the systems is unavailable. (Mitchell,
¶¶ 17, 23). However, we can find nothing in these paragraphs that discloses
or suggests setting the status of an access plan for executing queries to
disabled if one of the database systems is unavailable, as required by
claim 19. Nor, for that matter, can we find any such disclosure or suggestion
in the cited portions of Andrei.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Appeal 2011-010326
Application 11/926,504

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–11, 13, 16–18, 21,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. Insofar as our rationale
differs from that set forth by the Examiner, we denominate this a NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION.
The Examiner’s rejections of claim 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection . . .
shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also
provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE
OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with
respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as
to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the Examiner.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.
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-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
pgc