Ex Parte Ganesh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2013

10866433 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2013)

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 06/18/2013
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
REYES, MARIELA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AMIT GANESH, BIPUL SINHA, and SRINIVAS VEMURI
___________

Appeal 2010-010528
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 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

2
Appellants request rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 of our Decision
on Appeal mailed April 3, 2013, (“Decision” or “Dec.”) where we affirmed
the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-26.
The Request for Rehearing is denied.

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1 AND 14
A request for rehearing must state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked. Arguments not raised
in the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the
briefs are not permitted in the request for rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1).
A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to express disagreement with a
decision. The proper course for an applicant dissatisfied with a Board
decision is to appeal, not to file a request for rehearing to re-argue issues that
have already been decided. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145.
First, Appellants argue that the Board’s Decision ignores limitations
of claim 1. Specifically, Appellants point out that claim 1 recites “the step
of said database server generating at least one filter condition includes said
database server accessing said database object to extract said at least one
value.” Req. for Reh’g 2-3. In particular, Appellants argue that:
As stated in the only other limitation paragraph in the body of
claim 1, the “at least one value” is the basis of a condition that
is specified by the at least one filter condition. Thus, contrary
to the finding of the Board, the plain and explicit language of
claim 1 does call for the step of “generating said at least one
filter condition” to include the additional and specific step of
the “database server accessing said database object to extract
said at least one value.”
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

3
Req. for Reh’g 3.
However, in the Brief, Appellants argue the following:
The Bailis reference is alleged by the Examiner to describe
“detecting changes to a database that change the result of the
query”. The Bailis reference, however, does not describe how
such detection is to be done. Indeed, the portion of Bailis that
discusses the detection of changes to query results consists
merely of a single sentence (see Bailis col. 4 In. 38-40). Bailis
does not describe claim l’s specific feature for detecting
changes to the result of a query expression–that 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”.
Br. 5 (emphasis of underlining in original, italics added). Appellants further
argue that Bailis “suggests no specific steps for monitoring changes to the
result of a database query, let alone the specific steps required by
independent claim 1.” Br. 6 (emphasis added).
The arguments presented in the request for rehearing are presented for
the first time. As stated above, the request for rehearing must state with
particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or
overlooked. The Board could not have misapprehended or overlooked
arguments that were not previously presented. Specifically, the Board’s
Decision addresses the argument Appellants raised on appeal – concerning
the “detecting changes” limitation. Appellants did not argue the limitation
alleged to have been overlooked: “the step of said database server
generating at least one filter condition includes said database server
accessing said database object to extract said at least one value.” The
totality of the arguments raised by Appellants with respect to claim 1 span a
page and a half in the Brief and focus solely on the limitation of “said
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

4
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.” Br. 5-
6. In response, the Decision (at pages 6-7) focuses on the “detecting
changes” claim language. To the extent our Decision may be interpreted to
address other limitations that were not raised by the Appellants, we did not
do so, and we hereby revise the last paragraph of page 6 that continues to
page 7 to make that clear as follows:
Furthermore, the disputed claim limitation merely recites
that the database server generates “at least one filter condition
that is used to detect changes to a database that change the
result of the query expression.” Appellants’ objection to the
Examiner’s rejection on the basis that Bailis does not describe
additional or specific steps of detection is unpersuasive.
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of
claim 1, as no additional specific steps of detection are called
for under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed
claim language.
For these reasons, the Board did not overlook claim limitations in its
Decision. 37 C.R.F. § 41.52.
Second, Appellants argue that correct interpretation of claim 1
requires that “the value upon which the filter condition is based is a value
extracted from a database object.” Req. for Reh’g 3. Again, the only
arguments presented in the Brief before the Board, concerning claim 1,
dealt, as stated supra, with the limitation of “at least one filter condition that
is used to detect changes to a database . . . .” As such, the argument raised
in the Request for Rehearing concerning the extraction of values from a
database object will not be considered. “Arguments not raised in the briefs
before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the brief and
any reply brief(s) are not permitted in the request for rehearing except as
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

5
permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.” 37 C.F.R. §
41.52(a)(1)). Appellants have not identified a reason for meeting one of
these exceptions. In any event, Appellants have not explained in any
meaningful way why claim 1 should be interpreted to mean that the filter
condition is based on a value that is extracted from a database object. Claim
1 recites that the at least one filter condition “specifies a [further] condition”
and that that condition is based on at least one value stored in a database.
Claim 1 does not recite that the filter condition is based on at least one value
that is extracted from a database object. Accordingly, Appellants arguments
are not persuasive.
Next, Appellants argue that they are “not fully confident about how to
interpret the finding that both the criteria of the live query and the detection
of added/deleted rows are together a filtered condition.” Req. for Reh’g 4.
Appellants then proceed to provide their own understanding of the Board’s
findings and argue that “[g]iven this finding, Bailis cannot possibly read on
claim 1” and that “Bailis fails to disclose in any way that the criteria of the
live query is any way generated by extracting a value from a database object
referenced by the live query.” Req. for Reh’g 4-5.
The Decision at page 6 states:
We agree with the Examiner that Bailis discloses the
disputed claim limitation. Bailis teaches that the database
detects changes in the data that affect query results. See Bailis,
fig.4. Further, Bailis states that “[s]hould the database change to
remove or add records to those that originally met the criteria
of the query, the database informs the client of the change.”
Bailis, col. 4, 11. 41-43 (emphasis added). As such, we find that
Bailis teaches detecting a change of the query results by, at a
minimum, detecting if added or removed records meet the
original criteria of the live query, where the criteria of the live
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

6
query and the detection of added/deleted rows are the claimed
“filter condition.” Therefore, the Examiner's findings and
conclusions – that monitoring the live query in Bailis meets the
disputed claim limitation - are not in error.
We have reviewed the passage above in light of Appellants’ argument
that the Board’s findings lack clarity. However, other than attempting to re-
interpret the Board’s Decision, Appellants have failed to “state with
particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked
by the Board” as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.52. To the contrary, Appellants
urge the Board to consider additional arguments concerning the scope of the
“filter condition” in light of issues not raised in Appellants’ Brief. To be
sure, without good cause, Appellants urge the Board would have to find: (a)
that “a value from an added or deleted row would have to be compared to
the criteria of the live query” (without pointing out what claim limitation
argued in the Brief makes such a finding necessary); and (b) that the “criteria
of the live query is in any way generated by extracting a value from a
database object referenced by the live query” (again relying on a limitation
that was not argued in the Brief).
Accordingly, having reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellants’
request for rehearing of the issues concerning claims 1 and 14, except for the
revision indicated supra, we decline to modify our Decision and hereby
deny Appellants’ request as to those claims.
CLAIMS 3 AND 16
Appellants argue that because the Board “equated the execution of the
execution plan of the live query to the execution plan claimed, the detection
of added/deleted rows cannot entail the extraction of the value because the
adding or deleting of the rows are the result of execution of a plan of another
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

7
query that changed the result of the live query.” Req. for Reh’g 5.
Appellants further argue that “[b]ecause the detection of added/deleted rows
cannot entail extracting that at least one value, the Board is only left with
equating the criteria of the live query with the filtered condition.” Id.
We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellants’ argument.
However, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any
fact. As stated in our Decision, with respect to claim 1: “As such, we find
that Bailis teaches detecting a change of the query results by, at a minimum,
detecting if added or removed records meet the original criteria of the live
query, where the criteria of the live query and the detection of added/deleted
rows are the claimed ‘filter condition.’” Dec. 6. Therefore, the criteria and
the condition of detection of added/deleted rows are information that meets
the “filtered condition” limitation. And with respect to the limitation of
claim 3, we stated that “we concur with the Examiner’s finding that during
the execution of the plan in Bailis, values that match the criteria of the query
are extracted by producing the results of the query, and that based on the
results, changes in the database that affect the query results are detected.”
Dec. 7-8 (emphasis added). We find no misapprehension in these findings,
especially in light of the limitation of claim 3 that states “extracting . . . at
least one value.” Also we note that Bailis describes that “[s]hould the
database change to remove or add records to those that originally met the
criteria of the query, the database informs the client of the change.” Bailis,
col. 4, ll. 41-43 (emphasis added). That is, adding or deleting rows occurs
because of changes in the results of the original query, and not another
query. As such, Appellants’ argument (Req. for Reh’g 5) – that Bailis’
Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

8
adding or deleting of the rows is the result of execution of a plan of another
query that changed the result of the live query is not persuasive.
Next, Appellants also argue that:
[g]enerating the criteria of the live query fails to expressly
disclose generating a filter condition in a way that inherently
includes extracting a value during an execution plan. While the
Board may have found that an execution of an execution plan of
the live query is inherently disclosed, it does not follow that
generating the criteria of the live query inherently entails
extraction of a value from a database object referenced by the
live query during execution of the live query’s execution plan.
Req. for Reh’g 5-6 (emphasis added).
We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellants’ argument
and we are not persuaded that we have misapprehended or overlooked any
fact. Appellants’ argument (the highlighted portion above) is not
commensurate with the scope of the disputed limitation of claim 3, which
does not recite that a value from a database object is referenced by the live
query. Furthermore, Appellants confuse the separate findings in the
Decision. First, the Board agrees with the Examiner that Bailis extracts
values that match the criteria of the query by producing the results of the
query. Dec. 8. Second, the Board concurs with the Examiner’s finding that
Bailis inherently teaches executing an “execution plan.” Dec. 7. We are not
persuaded that the combination of these findings meeting the limitation of
claim 3 misapprehends of overlooks any fact.
Accordingly, having reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellants’
request for rehearing of the issues concerning claims 3 and 16, we decline to
modify our Decision and hereby deny Appellants’ request.

Appeal 2010-010528
Application 10/866,433

9
CONCLUSION
The Request for Rehearing has been considered and denied.
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).

REHEARING DENIED

msc