Ex Parte Hall, Jr.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 20, 2004

09477463 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HAROLD HERSHEY HALL, JR.
____________
Appeal No. 2004-0076
Application No. 09/477,463
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20.
We affirm.
Appeal No. 2004-0076
Application No. 09/477,463
-2-
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to computer systems incorporating a Relational Database
Management System (RDMS) using a Structured Query Language (SQL) interface. An
index advisor specifies an optimal index configuration for use in performing workloads
against a database managed by the RDMS. If the database and database
management system are remotely located from the index advisor, the index advisor
invokes a stored procedure in the database management system to obtain information
for the optimal index configuration. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented apparatus for accessing a database, comprising:
(a) a computer; and
(b) an index advisor, executed by the computer, for specifying an index
configuration for use in performing a workload against a remote database
managed by a remote database management system, wherein the remote
database and remote database management system are executed remotely from
the index advisor, and the index advisor invokes a stored procedure in the
remote database management system in order to obtain information for the index
configuration.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Chaudhuri et al. (Chaudhuri) 5,913,206 Jun. 15, 1999
(filed Dec. 1, 1997)
Bird 6,321,235 B1 Nov. 20, 2001
(filed Sep. 29, 1998)
Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Chaudhuri.
Appeal No. 2004-0076
Application No. 09/477,463
1 The examiner mailed a later Answer (Paper No. 15), to which appellant responded with a
supplemental reply brief. The rejections and responsive arguments in papers 12 and 15 appear not to
differ in substance.
-3-
Claims 4, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chaudhuri and Bird.
Claims 5-8, 13-16, and 21-24 are objected to, but allowable if rewritten in
independent form.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 6) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 12)1 for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 11), the
Reply Brief (Paper No. 13), and the Supplemental Reply Brief (Paper No. 16) for
appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellant contends that the rejected claims stand or fall together. We select
claim 1 as representative in our review of the Section 102 rejection over Chaudhuri.
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Chaudhuri discloses (Fig. 2) a database 210, a database server 220, and an
index selection tool 300. Database server 220 processes queries to manipulate data in
database 210. Database server 220 comprises a storage engine 230 for accessing
data in database 210, and a query optimizer 240 that uses indexes of a selected index
configuration 302 to more efficiently access data in database 210. Index selection tool
Appeal No. 2004-0076
Application No. 09/477,463
-4-
300 selects index configuration 302 for use by database server 220 in accordance with
a workload 304, a database schema 306, and query optimizer 240 of database server
220. Index selection tool 300 attempts to select an effective set of indexes for index
configuration 302 to help minimize the cost of executing workload 304 against database
210. The effectiveness of a given index configuration may be based on cost estimates
as determined by query optimizer 240 to execute queries of workload 304 against
database 210 using the index configuration. Col. 6. l. 30 - col. 7, l. 27.
Appellant argues that Chaudhuri fails to teach or suggest the following language
found in the final clause of claim 1: “the index advisor invokes a stored procedure in the
remote database management system in order to obtain information for the index
configuration.”
Appellant submits that “what-if creation tool 236” is part of the “index selection
tool 300” of the reference, and thus cannot be a stored procedure invoked by the index
advisor. (Brief at 6-7.) We disagree that “what-if creation tool 236” is part of “index
selection tool 300.” Chaudhuri discloses, as clearly shown in Figure 3, that “what-if
creation tool 236” resides in database server 220, rather than forming a part of index
selection tool 300. Further, as described at column 9, line 18 through column 10, line
33 of the reference, and as shown in Figure 4, what-if index creation tool 236, at the
behest of index selection tool 300, gathers statistical information for cost estimates.
Further, index selection tool 300 may also invoke query optimizer 240 in a design
mode such that query optimizer 240 generates execution plans over both what-if
Appeal No. 2004-0076
Application No. 09/477,463
-5-
indexes and existing indexes, to evaluate both types of indexes in evaluating index
configurations to select index configuration 302. Col. 9, ll. 4-17. Index selection tool
300 (by means of cost evaluation tool 320) also may invoke query optimizer 240 to
obtain a cost of each query of workload 304 for each candidate index configuration.
Query optimizer 240 estimates a cost and delivers an execution plan 241 (Fig. 3),
comprising the cost estimate, for use by index selection tool 300. Col. 11, l. 62 - col. 12,
l. 3.
In each instance -- obtaining information by means of what-if index creation tool
236 and obtaining information by means of query optimizer 240 -- the index advisor
invokes a stored procedure in the remote database management system in order to
obtain information for the index configuration.
For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element
of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference, but this is not
an “ipsissimis verbis” test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Chaudhuri uses the word “invoke” in describing the invention, but
does not use the word “procedure.” We agree with the examiner, and appellant does
not argue to the contrary (e.g., Brief at 6), that a “stored procedure” may refer simply to
a program module or computer-executable instruction that is stored for execution. The
term “stored procedure” thus may refer simply to a portion of element 236 or 240 of the
reference.
Appeal No. 2004-0076
Application No. 09/477,463
2 We observe in passing that the claim 4 recitation of “the SQL statements” lacks proper
antecedent, as earlier claim 3 sets forth “at least one” SQL statement (i.e., not necessarily a plurality of
statements).
-6-
Finally, in response to appellant’s allegation that Chaudhuri fails to disclose “a
stored procedure that obtains index information,” (Brief at 7), we remind appellant that
the invention that is claimed relates to an index advisor invoking a stored procedure in
order to obtain information for the index configuration, rather than a stored procedure
that obtains index information.
Turning to the Section 103 rejection, representative claim 4 adds the limitation
that the SQL statements2 of the workload are obtained from a cache maintained by the
remote database management system. The examiner submits Bird as evidence of the
well-known advantages of cache memory, and specifically the advantages of cache
memory for SQL statements in a relational database management system. Appellant
relies on the position that Bird fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Chaudhuri.
(Brief at 7.) The examiner has thus set forth a reasonable case for showing prima facie
obviousness of the subject matter of instant claim 4, which remains unrebutted by
appellant.
In view of the foregoing we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 9-11, and 17-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Chaudhuri and the rejection of claims 4,
12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhuri and Bird.
Appeal No. 2004-0076
Application No. 09/477,463
-7-
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-3, 9-11, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and of
claims 4, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2004-0076
Application No. 09/477,463
-8-
GATES & COOPER LLP
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES , CA 90045