Ex Parte Gui et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2010

10706656 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HONG GUI, AMBUJ SHATDAL, and CURT J. ELLMANN
____________
Appeal 2009-001472
Application 10/706,6561
Technology Center 2100
____________
Decided: May 24, 2010
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JEAN R. HOMERE, and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed on November 12, 2003. The real party in interest is NCR Corp.
(App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2009-001472
Application 10/706,656

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 28. (App. Br. 1.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method, system, and storage medium for
storing, utilizing, and maintaining materialized views that contain results of
cube-based operations. (Spec. 3, para. [09]; spec. 4, para. [026].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A database system comprising:
a storage to store a view containing results of a cube-based
operation on at least one base table, the view containing a first result
set for a group-by on a first grouping set, and a second result set for a
group-by on a second grouping set; and
a controller, in response to a change to the at least one base
table, to:
update the first result set by computing a change to the
first result set based on a change in the at least one base table;
and
update the second result set by computing a change to the
second result set based on the change to the first result set.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Cochrane 2003/0093407 A1 May 15, 2003
Bellamkonda 7,035,843 B1 Apr. 25, 2006

Appeal 2009-001472
Application 10/706,656

3
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1 through 5, 13 through 16, and 22 through 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Cochrane.
Claims 6 through 12, 17 through 21, and 25 through 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Cochrane and Bellamkonda.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Cochrane’s disclosure of updating the entries
in a view based on changes to the base table, whereby aggregate changes to
the base table produce a delta cube in accordance with specified group sets,
does not teach updating one result set based on a change to another result set
where both result sets correspond to respective group sets. (App. Br. 4-6.)
Further, Appellants argue that Cochrane’s disclosure of how underlying base
tables impact a materialized view is irrelevant to “updat[ing] the second
result set by computing a change to the second result set based on the change
to the first result set,” as recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 7; Reply
Br. 1-2.) In particular, Appellants allege that Cochrane’s disclosure of
computing a change to a materialized view based on an underlying table
corresponds only to the first update task, as claimed. (App. Br. 8.)
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Cochrane’s disclosure of changing one
dimension of a hierarchical data cube will directly affect another dimension
of the same data cube teaches that changes in one result set of a data cube
will reflect changes onto a second result set of the same data cube. (Ans. 25-
27.) Additionally, the Examiner finds that Cochrane’s disclosure of
Appeal 2009-001472
Application 10/706,656

4
cascading changes refers to modifying child records based on changes to
related parent records within a hierarchy. (Id. at 27.) Therefore, the
Examiner finds that cascading changes on Cochrane’s base tables amounts
to changing the summary tables as well. (Id.)

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Cochrane anticipates independent claim 1? In particular, the issue turns on
whether Cochrane teaches “updat[ing] the second result set by computing a
change to the second result set based on the change to the first result set,” as
recited in independent claim 1.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (“FF”) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Cochrane
1. Cochrane generally relates to database management systems
and, in particular, to “incrementally maintaining a materialized view with
complex grouping expressions derived from at least one table in a database
stored on a computer.” (1: para. [0003], [0009].)
2. Cochrane’s Figure 1 depicts a database service module (114)
that supports the functions of Structured Query Language (“SQL”),
including definitions, access control, retrieval, and update of user and system
data. (2: para. [0024].)
3. Cochrane discloses hierarchical data cubes as a set of
ROLLUP( )’s, one for each dimension. (4: para. [0064].) In particular,
Appeal 2009-001472
Application 10/706,656

5
Cochrane discloses an SQL statement that reflects a hierarchical data cube
according to the hierarchies of three dimensions: product, location and time.
(Id.) Further, Cochrane discloses that the result of an example query
consists of different grouping combinations. (Id.)
4. Cochrane discloses that inserting, deleting, and updating a
single row of base data can affect multiple rows in a summary table. (6:
para. [0090].)
5. Cochrane discloses complex grouping expressions, including
CUBE( )-expressions that produce all possible grouping combinations for a
given set of grouping attributes. (4: para. [0059], [0060].) Further,
Cochrane discloses an example of incrementing summary tables with
complex grouping expressions, whereby A1, A2, and A3 are grouping
attributes in the complex grouping expression (A1, A2, and A3) in summary
table t. (6: para. [0104]; 7: para. [0107].)
Bellamkonda
6. Bellamkonda generally relates to database management systems
and, in particular, to techniques for efficiently evaluating database queries,
including hierarchical cubes. (Col. 1, ll. 21-24.)
7. Bellamkonda discloses that a grouping distinguisher or
grouping identifier is a single number that distinguishes groupings at each
stage of computation and propagation. (Col. 11, ll. 52-56.) Further,
Bellamkonda discloses both hash partitioning and partitioning rows on the
grouping identifier. (Col. 17, ll. 20, 2125-26.)

Appeal 2009-001472
Application 10/706,656

6
IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)).
Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim
at issue “reads on” a prior art reference. In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow
the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art,
then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also
covers subject matter not in the prior art.

Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999)
(internal citations omitted).
Obviousness
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under
§ 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(citation omitted).

V. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) Rejection

Appeal 2009-001472
Application 10/706,656

7
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “updat[ing] the second
result set by computing a change to the second result set based on the change
to the first result set.”
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Cochrane discloses
maintaining a materialized view with groups derived from at least one table
stored in a database. (FF 1.) Cochrane discloses a database service module
that accesses, controls, retrieves, and updates data. (FF 2.) In particular,
Cochrane discloses a hierarchical data cube that consists of multiple
dimensions. (FF 3.) Further, Cochrane discloses that updating a single row
of base data can affect multiple rows of data. (FF 4.)
We find that Cochrane’s disclosure teaches a database service module
that is capable of updating a multidimensional hierarchical data cube,
whereby different groupings contain similar data. We also find that
Cochrane’s disclosure teaches that upon updating a particular row of data,
all data groupings utilizing such row are subsequently affected.
Consequently, we find that Cochrane’s disclosure of updating a
multidimensional data cube containing different groupings teaches utilizing
the changes to a first group in order to update a second group in the
hierarchy. Thus, we find that Cochrane teaches “updat[ing] the second
result set by computing a change to the second result set based on the change
to the first result set,” as recited in independent claim 1. It follows that
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Cochrane
anticipates independent claim 1.

Appeal 2009-001472
Application 10/706,656

8
Claims 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 22, and 23
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for patentability with
respect to independent claims 13 and 22, and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 14,
and 23. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as representative of the
cited claims. Consequently, Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 13 and 22, and dependent claims
2, 4, 5, 14, and 23, for the reasons set forth in our discussion of independent
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2009).
Claims 3, 15, 16, and 24
Appellants contend that Cochrane’s disclosure of incrementally
updating a materialized view does not teach multiple levels of updates.
(App. Br. 9-10.) In particular, Appellants argue that Cochrane does not
teach “updat[ing] the third result set by computing a change to the third
result set based on the change to the second result set,” as recited in
dependent claim 3. (Id.) We do not agree.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Cochrane discloses
different groupings combinations (e.g., A1, A2, and A3). (FF 3, 5.) We find
that Cochrane’s disclosure teaches at least three groupings. Consequently,
we find that Cochrane’s disclosure of three groupings, in conjunction with
utilizing the changes to a first group in order to update a second group in the
hierarchy, teaches utilizing the changes to a second group in order to update
a third group in the hierarchy. Thus, we find that Cochrane teaches the
disputed limitation. It follows that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Cochrane anticipates dependent claim 3.
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for patentability with
respect to dependent claims 15, 16, and 24. Therefore, we select dependent
Appeal 2009-001472
Application 10/706,656

9
claim 3 as representative of the cited claims. Consequently, Appellants have
not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection dependent claims 15, 16, and 24
for the reasons set forth in our discussion of dependent claim 3. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection
Claims 6, 10 through 12, 17, 18, 25, and 26
Appellants offer the same argument set forth in response to the
anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 to rebut the obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 6, 10 through 12, 17, 18, 25, and 26. (App.
Br. 10.) We have already addressed this argument in our discussion of
independent claim 1, and we found it unpersuasive. Consequently,
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
dependent claims 6, 10 through 12, 17, 18, 25, and 26 are unpatentable over
the combination of Cochrane and Bellamkonda.
Claims 7 through 9
Appellants contend that Bellamkonda’s disclosure of a group
distinguisher is not used for the purpose of performing hashing distribution
because none of the keys used for partitioning are assigned a predefined
value. (App. Br. 10-11.) Therefore, Appellants argue that Bellamkonda
does not teach “the controller is adapted to distribute rows in the first result
set across the access modules based on a hash of columns of the second
group set and at least another column that is assigned a predefined value,” as
recited in dependent claim 7. (Id.) We do not agree.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Bellamkonda
discloses techniques for evaluating database queries, including hierarchical
data cubes. (FF 6.) Bellamkonda discloses that a grouping distinguisher, or
Appeal 2009-001472
Application 10/706,656

10
grouping identifier, distinguishes groupings at each stage of computation
and propagation. (FF 7.) In particular, Bellamkonda discloses hash
partitioning and, further, partitioning rows according to grouping identifiers.
(Id.)
We find that Bellamkonda’s disclosure teaches hashing keys and
assigning a group identifier at each stage of computation. In summary, we
find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated utilizing
Cochrane’s database service module to hash keys and subsequently assign a
predefined group identifier to the respective keys during each stage of data
processing. Thus, we find that the combined disclosures of Cochrane and
Bellamkonda teach the disputed limitation.
Additionally, we note that the claim limitation in question is directed
to a “a controller adapted to distribute rows in the first result set across the
access modules based on a hash of columns of the second grouping set and
at least another column that is assigned a predefined value.” (App. Br. 10-
11, Claims App'x.) (Emphasis added) Such language does not require that
the controller actually distribute rows in the first result set across the access
modules based on a hash of columns of the second grouping set and at least
another column that is assigned a predefined value. Rather, it is a statement
of intended use, which is fully met by a prior art structure that is capable of
performing the intended use. That is, a statement of intended use in an
apparatus claim cannot distinguish over a prior art apparatus that discloses
all recited limitations and is capable of performing the recited function. See
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see Application of
Dense, 156 F.2d 76 (CCPA 1946). See also Ex parte Satchell, Appeal No.
2008-0071, 2008 WL 4828136 (BPAI 2008) (non-precedential). It follows
Appeal 2009-001472
Application 10/706,656

11
that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
the combination of Cochrane and Bellamkonda renders dependent claim 7
unpatentable.
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for patentability with
respect to dependent claims 8 and 9. Therefore, we select dependent claim 7
as representative of the cited claims. Consequently, Appellants have not
shown error in the Examiner’s rejection dependent claims 8 and 9 for the
reasons set forth in our discussion of dependent claim 7. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 19 through 21, 27, and 28
Appellants offer the same argument set forth in response to the
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 7 to rebut the obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 19 through 21, 27, and 28. (App. Br. 12.) We
have already addressed this argument in our discussion of dependent claim
7, and we found it unpersuasive. Consequently, Appellants have not shown
that the Examiner erred in concluding that dependent claims 19 through 21,
27, and 28 are unpatentable over the combination of Cochrane and
Bellamkonda.

VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 through 5, 13 through 16, and 22 through 24 as being anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
2. Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 6 through 12, 17 through 21, and 25 through 28 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2009-001472
Application 10/706,656

12

VII. DECISION
1. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 through 5,
13 through 16, and 22 through 24 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a).
2. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6 through
12, 17 through 21, and 25 through 28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

Vsh

JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA CORPORATION
2835 MIAMI VILLAGE DRIVE
MIAMISBURG, OH 45342