Ex Parte Ganesh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

10866433 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)

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.
10/866,433 06/10/2004 Amit Ganesh 50277-2243 1718
42425 7590 02/21/2017
HTPKMAN PAT F.RMO RFFTCFR RTNOTTAM/OR AFT F
EXAMINER
1 Almaden Boulevard ALMANI, MOHSEN
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT GANESH, BIPUL SINHA, and SRINIVAS VEMURI
Appeal 2015-005310
Application 10/866,433
Technology Center 2100
Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-13, 27, and 29-39. Claims 2, 14—26, and 28 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Oracle International Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-005310
Application 10/866,433
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal involves database technology. Spec.
1 [2],2 According to the Abstract, “[mjodifications to a database can change
the result of a query and therefore what the content of such a body of data,
such as a result set, should be.” Spec. 1 [112]. Appellants’ claims are
directed to “using filtering conditions to detect whether changes to a
database alter the result of a query expression.” Amended Appeal Br. 3,3
Claims Appendix 11. Further details of the appealed subject matter are
recited in illustrative independent claim 1, reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.4
1. A computer-implemented method for detecting changes to a
result of a query expression that may be computed by a database
server, comprising steps of:
said database server generating at least one filter condition that
is used to detect changes to a database that change the result of the
query expression;
wherein said at least one filter condition specifies a condition
that is based on a column of a database object and that is based on at
least one column value for said column, said at least one column value
not being explicitly referenced in said query expression; and
wherein the step of said database server generating said at least
one filter condition includes said database server:
extracting said at least one column value from said column of
said database object; and
2 References to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) are directed to the
specification filed on June 10, 2004 and its subsequent modification filed on
October 23, 2006, as appropriate.
3 References to the Amended Brief (“Amended Appeal Br.”) are directed to
the Appellants’ Amended Appeal Brief filed on November 5, 2014.
4 References to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) are directed to the
Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on October 20, 2014.
2
Appeal 2015-005310
Application 10/866,433
using said at least one column value to form said at least one
filter condition.
As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies on the following references at pages 2 to 13 of the Final
Action:5
Risch ’075
Risch
Bailis
Langseth
Tow
US 5,133,075
US 5,471,629
US 5,999,946
US 6,671,715 B1
US 2004/0064441 A1
July 21, 1992
Nov. 28, 1995
Dec. 7, 1999
Dec. 30, 2003
Apr. 1, 2004
Appellants seek review of the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1, 3, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bailis in view of Risch. Final Act. 2-4.6
2. Claims 7 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bailis in view of Risch and Fangseth. Final
Act. 5.
3. Claims 4, 9, 13, 30, 35, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bailis in view of Risch and
Risch ’075. Final Act. 6-8.
5 References to the Final Action (“Final Act.”) are directed to the Office
Action mailed on February 19, 2014.
6 Claims 2 and 28 are not listed in the statement of the rejection under
review although these claims are addressed in the Final Office Action
concerning this ground. The Claims Appendix represents that claims 2 and
28 have been cancelled, and the grounds of rejections to be reviewed on
appeal, as identified in Appellant’s Amended Appeal Brief, omit the listing
of claims 2 and 28. Amended Appeal Br. 4.
3
Appeal 2015-005310
Application 10/866,433
4. Claims 5, 6, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unptatentable over Bailis in view of Risch, Risch ’075, and Tow.
Final Act. 8-9.
5. Claims 8-13 and 34-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unptatentable over Bailis, Risch, Langseth, Risch ’075,
and Tow. Final Act. 9-13.
We previously decided an appeal in the present application on April 2,
2013. Ex parte Ganesh, No. 2010-010528, 2013 WL 1401719 (PTAB 2013)
(affirming the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections); see also
Ex parte Ganesh, No. 2010-010528, 2013 WL 3363092 (PTAB 2013)
(denying Appellants’ Request for Rehearing).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 27 because the Examiner has not
shown that Bailis teaches or suggests “extracting said at least one column
value from said column of said database object.”
Independent claims 1 and 27 each recite that “the step of said database
server generating said at least one filter condition includes said database
server: extracting said at least one column value from said column of said
database object.” The Examiner asserts Bailis as disclosing this limitation
by pointing to column 4, lines 36-43 and Figure 4, where Bailis “disclose[s]
accessing the database and extracting query results (at least one value[]).”
4
Appeal 2015-005310
Application 10/866,433
Final. Act. 3. The Examiner also asserts, addressing the disclosure relied
upon in the Final Rejection under review, that “when the [Bailis] live query
is executed against the database[,] specific database values are extracted and
related to the live query and used fo[r] the database monitoring.” Advisory
Action (mailed May 1, 2014), 2. In response to Appellants’ argument
presented in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner finds that Bailis “explicitly uses
information contained in the active query as filtering condition to monitor
changes in the database that causes changes to the result of the live query.”
Ans. 5.7
We are not persuaded that these findings sufficiently show that the
Bailis live query and extraction of query results teach or suggest extracting
said at least one column value from said column of said database object, in
connection with generating the at least one filter condition. We agree that
Bailis teaches monitoring a database to determine changes through a live
query. Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner has mapped the claimed filter condition
to Bailis’s information in the live query. Ans. 4 (“Bailis . . . uses
information contained in an active query as filtering condition to monitor
changes in the database that causes changes to the result of the query issued
by a user.”). The claims require, however, generating the filter condition by,
at least, extracting a column value. Extracting values generally, in
connection with executing the live query, therefore, does not meet the
limitation, unless the extraction is shown to be of column values linked to
generating the filter condition. We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument
that the Examiner has not shown sufficiently that, when Bailis extracts
7 References to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) are directed to the Answer
mailed on March 9, 2015.
5
Appeal 2015-005310
Application 10/866,433
values in executing the live query, the extracted values constitute at least one
column value from a column of a database object, much less that the
extracted values are used for generating a filter condition or in any way used
to detect changes in the database. Appeal Br. 5-6.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bailis and Risch. Because the
remaining claims depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1 and 27, and as
applied by the Examiner, no other prior art of record has been asserted as
disclosing the limitation addressed above, we also do not sustain the
rejections of the pending dependent claims 3-13, and 29-39.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-13, 27, and 29-39 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6