Ex Parte Kostamaa et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2011

10770792 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2011)

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.
10/770,792 02/03/2004 O. Pekka Kostamaa 11469 (NCR.0125US) 1401
26890 7590 05/31/2011
JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA CORPORATION
10000 INNOVATION DRIVE
DAYTON, OH 45342
EXAMINER
PHAM, KHANH B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte O. PEKKA KOSTAMAA and J. MARK MORRIS
____________________

Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,7921
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed February 3, 2004. The real party in interest is Teradata
US, Inc. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-13, 15-
21, and 23-34 under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Claims 1, 14, and 22
have been canceled (App. Br. 1). The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal relates to an article (comprising a
medium including computer instructions), system and method for
transforming database data based on conditions specified in a database query
or transaction. (Spec. ¶¶ [0005], [0010]-[0011].)2
Representative Claim
Independent claim 2 further illustrates the invention, and is
reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized:
2. A method for use in a database system, comprising:
receiving a transaction that selects values of a column of
a first table based on one or more conditions, the column in the
first table being according to a first data type, wherein the first
table is stored in a storage subsystem of the database system;
in response to the one or more conditions of the received
transaction, transforming the first data type to a second,
different data type;

2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”)
filed August 04, 2008; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed December 15,
2008. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed October 14,
2008.
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

3
storing the selected values of the column according to the
second data type in a second table that is stored in the storage
subsystem;
determining a domain of the selected values of the
column based on the one or more conditions of the received
transaction; and
selecting the second data type based on the domain of the
selected values of the column, wherein the second data type has
a smaller storage requirement than the first data type.

Reference
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence in support
of the rejections:
Santosuosso US 2004/0181514 A1 Sep. 16, 2004
(filed Mar. 13, 2003)

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 2-13, 15-21, and 23-34 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Santosuosso.

ISSUES
Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues
before us are as follows:
1. Does the Examiner err in finding Santosuosso discloses: (1)
“receiving a transaction that selects values of a column of a first table based
on one or more conditions, [and] . . . in response to the one or more
conditions of the received transaction, transforming the first data type to a
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

4
second, different data type; (2) “storing the selected values of the column
according to the second data type in a second table;” (3) “determining a
domain of the selected values of the column based on the one or more
conditions of the received transaction;” and (4) “selecting the second data
type based on the domain of the selected values of the column, wherein the
second data type has a smaller storage requirement than the first data type”
as recited in Appellants’ claim 2?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding Santosuosso discloses
“the received transaction specif[ying] an enumerated list of values to
select the values of the column of the first table, and . . . performing
value list compression based on the enumerated list” as recited in
Appellants’ claim 10?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or
set aside in the Analysis that follows. We also add the following factual
findings:
Appellants’ Claims & Specification
1. Appellants’ claim 2 recites, in relevant part, “a transaction that
selects values of a column . . . based on one or more conditions, [and] . . . in
response to the . . . conditions . . . transforming the first data type to a
second, different data type;” and “determining a domain of the selected
values . . . based on the one or more conditions.” (Claim 2; see App. of
Appealed Claims i.) Appellants do not explicitly define any of the relevant
claim terminology in their Specification. For example, a review of the
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

5
Specification shows no definition for the terms “condition(s),” “data type,”
or “domain.”
2. Appellants, however, do provide a description of their invention
by way of an example:
The database system receives (at 102) a transaction, such as in
the form of one or more SQL queries . . . . Upon receipt of the
transaction, the data type transformation routine 28 determines
(at 104) which of one or more columns are selected from a
parent table (or from multiple parent tables) for storing in an
intermediate or result table.
. . . The data type transformation routine 28 then
determines (at 106) the data demographics of each selected
column based on a condition (or plural conditions) to be applied
during the transaction. Conditions can be specified by
enumeration, predicate expressions, data type characteristics,
conditional statements (e.g., CASE MATCH clause), and
column-level constraints.
. . . Based on the condition(s) to be applied by the
transaction, the data type transformation routine 28 determines
(at 108) the domain of data values to be stored into the
intermediate or result table. Based on the determined domain
of the values, the transformation routine 28 transforms (at 110)
the data type of each selected column. The selected data type is
a data type that can most efficiently store the determined
domain of data values . . . .
. . .
. . . The following describes some example cases in
which the transformation of a data type for a given column can
improve storage efficiency. In a first case (case 1), a column in
a parent table that has an integer data type is selected by a
transaction in which a predicate expression P is specified. An
example of a predicate expression is T1.A < 1000 (which
means that all values of column A in table T1 that are less than
1000 are selected for output).
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

6
. . . Based on the range of the data type, the predicate
expression P, and any column-level constraints, the domain of
integer data values of the selected column in the intermediate or
result table is determined by the data type transformation
routine 28. The range of the data type refers to the minimum
and maximum values that can be stored by the specified data
type.
. . . [T]he most storage capacity efficient integer data type
that covers the domain of integers is determined. For example,
assume that a column in the parent table is a 10-byte integer
capable of storing integer values between zero and the
maximum value that can be represented by a 10-byte integer.
The predicate expression P applied in the transaction specifies
selection of data values of the column less than 1000. . . .
Based on these conditions, the domain of integer data values
includes integer values between 0 and 999 inclusive. The most
storage capacity efficient integer data type that covers this
domain of integers is a 2-byte integer data type. Therefore, in
this example, the transformation routine 28 transforms the 10-
byte integer data type to a 2-byte integer data type for storing
the column in the intermediate or result table.
(Spec. ¶¶ [0017]-[0019], [0021]-[0023].) Appellants also explain “that
numerous variations or modifications from the described embodiments are
possible.” (Spec. ¶ [0009]; see also Spec. ¶ [0039].)
Supplemental Reference: Domain
3. We adopt the following dictionary definition for the term
“domain”: Domain – “the set of those values of an independent variable
which exist for a given function.” Webster’s New World College
Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1999), available at http://www.yourdictionary.com/.

Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

7
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue independent claims 2, 13, and 21 together as a group
based on claim 2 and do not separately argue dependent claims 3-9, 11, 12,
29, 30, and 33 (dependent on claim 2); 15-20, 31, and 34 (dependent on
claim 13); and 23-28 and 32 (dependent on claim 21), all with respect to the
Examiner’s § 102 rejection. (App. Br. 4, 7-9.) Appellants separately argue
dependent claim 10, also with respect to the Examiner’s § 102 rejection.
(App. Br. 7-8.) Therefore, we select independent claim 2 and dependent
claim 10 as representative of Appellants’ arguments and groupings with
respect to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We have considered only those arguments that Appellants have
actually raised in their Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in their Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants have the opportunity on appeal to the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The Examiner sets forth a
detailed explanation of a reasoned conclusion of anticipation in the
Examiner’s Answer with respect to each of Appellants’ claims so rejected
(Ans. 3-14), and in particular claims 2 (Ans. 4, 7-13) and 10 (Ans. 6, 13).
Therefore, we look to the Appellants’ Briefs to show error in the proffered
reasoned conclusions. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-86.
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

8
Arguments Concerning the Examiner’s Rejection of
Representative Claim 2 Under § 102
The Examiner rejects Appellants’ independent claim 2 as being
anticipated by Santosuosso. (Ans. 3-4.) The Examiner finds that
Santosuosso discloses the disputed features of: “receiving a transaction that
selects values of a column of a first table based on one or more conditions”
(citing Santosuosso ¶¶ [0011], [0059]); “in response to the one or more
conditions of the received transaction, transforming the first data type to a
second data type” (citing ¶ [0061]); “storing the selected values of the
column according to the second data type in a second table that is stored in
the storage subsystem” (citing ¶ [0061]; Fig. 2A); “determining a domain of
selected data values of the column based on the one or more conditions”
(citing ¶¶ [0038], [0045], [0057]); and “selecting the second data type based
on the domain of the selected data values of the column, wherein the second
data type has a smaller storage requirement than the first data type” (citing
¶¶ [0038], [0045], [0057]). (Ans. 4.)
As explained by the Examiner:
Santosuosso teaches a method and system for reducing
network traffic for database transaction between a requesting
client and a database server, where small byte-code
representations, which are significantly smaller than the actual
represented data, of the data from the database are returned to
the requesting client, thus reducing network traffic between the
client and server ([see] Abstract). For example, as shown in
Santosuosso’s Fig. 2E, actual data entry “ALABAMA” of the
column “STATE” of the table “DEMOGRAPHIC’ is
transformed to small presentation “01” ([see] Santosuosso at
[0046]).
(Ans. 8.)
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

9
Appellants do not dispute that Santosuosso discloses “receiving a
transaction [query] that selects values of a column of a first table based on
one or more conditions.” (App. Br. 4.) Appellants contend, however, that
Santosuosso fails to disclose “in response to the one or more conditions of
the received transaction, transforming the first data type (of a column in the
first table) to a second, different data type, and storing the selected values of
the column according to the second data type in a second table.” (App. Br.
4; see also App. Br. 5-6.) In particular, Appellants assert that the portions of
Santosuosso cited by the Examiner describe determining whether data
representations are enabled for the selected table (database) column (selected
data values), which entails testing a flag associated with the column, and
accordingly, the transformation is not based on the conditions specified in
the transaction:
[D]etermining whether use of representations is enabled is
based on determining whether pre-formatted caching is enabled,
which is determined by “testing a flag in the column status
record 163 associated with the column for which data is
requested” . . . . Thus, determining whether use of
representations is enabled is based on a flag contained in a
cache, and not based on one or more conditions of a
received transaction.
(App. Br. 5.)
Appellants also contend that Santosuosso fails to disclose the
determining and selecting steps of claim 2, i.e., “determining a domain” and
“selecting the second data type based on the domain.” (App. Br. 6-7.)
Specifically, Appellants assert that the portions of Santosuosso cited by the
Examiner do not describe domains, but instead describe encoded data
vectors, pre-formatted column values, and column-level statistics. (App. Br.
6-7.)
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

10
Based on the record before us, we do not find error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of Appellants’ claim 2. We agree with the Examiner
that Santosuosso discloses transforming a first data type into a second,
different data type in response to one or more conditions of the received
transaction; storing the transformed values in a second table; determining a
domain of the values based on the one or more conditions; and selecting the
second data type, which has a smaller storage requirement than the first data
type, based on the domain. (Ans. 4, 7-13.)
We note that Appellants do not explicitly define “conditions,” “data
type,” or “domain” (FF 1-2), and accordingly, we give this claim
terminology the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
[S]pecification” in accordance with our mandate that “claim language should
be read in light of the [S]pecification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
Appellants’ first disputed limitation recites:
receiving a transaction that selects values of a column of a first
table based on one or more conditions, [and] . . . in response to
the one or more conditions of the received transaction,
transforming the first data type to a second, different data type;
[and] storing the selected values of the column according to the
second data type in a second table.
(Claim 2; see App. of Appealed Claims i.)
Based on Appellants’ disclosures (FF 2), we interpret the disputed
limitation to simply mean transforming selected data of a first data type into
a second, different data type and storing the transformed data values in a
second table. “It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a
patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

11
exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Appellants’ Specification, which
acts as “the primary basis for construing the claims,” id. at 1315 (quoting
Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
supports this construction.
Appellants seem to assert that the disputed claim limitation requires
utilizing the conditions specified in a database transaction (query), in a
process distinct from the selection of data values (selecting values of a
column of a first table) to transform a first data type to a second data type.
(See App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 1-3.) Claim 2 recites no such requirement.
Claim 2 merely requires that transforming the data type is responsive (in
response) to the conditions.
It is undisputed that Santosuosso discloses queries that select database
columns and/or data in selected columns. (See supra; Santosuosso, ¶¶
[0005], [0059].) Such queries include “conditions,” e.g., the name of a
column. (See Ans. 11.) As explained by the Examiner, the conditions
determine the selection of the column/column values. In response to the
selection of column values, Santosuosso’s system checks enablement of a
pre-formatting cache and the use of data representations (by analyzing a
flag). Santosuosso’s system then creates a representation of the selected
data, if the preformatting cache and use of representations are enabled.
Santosuosso’s system then stores the representation (i.e., the selected,
transformed data) in a representation table. (See Ans. 7-11; Santosuosso –
¶ [0061]; Figs. 2C, 2E, 5.)
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

12
Santosuosso discloses creating representations of selected column
data values (transforming from a first data type into a second data type).
The creation of the representation(s) is necessarily responsive to (based on)
the selected column data values (the data being represented/transformed),
which in turn is selected in response to (based on) the conditions present in
the query. Thus, we find that Santosuosso discloses transforming a first data
type into a second, different data type in response to one or more conditions
of a received transaction and stores the transformed values in a second table.
Appellants’ second and third disputed limitations recite:
determining a domain of the selected values of the column
based on the one or more conditions of the received transaction;
and selecting the second data type based on the domain of the
selected values of the column, wherein the second data type has
a smaller storage requirement than the first data type.
(Claim 2; see App. of Appealed Claims i.)
Based on Appellants’ disclosures (FF 2) and our adopted definition of
“domain” (FF 3), we broadly but reasonably construe the disputed
limitations to simply mean determining a range of possible values of the
selected values of the column based on the selected data values (i.e., the one
or more conditions of the received transaction) and selecting the second data
type, having a smaller storage requirement than the first data type, based on
the range of the selected values.
Again, Appellants seem to assert that the disputed claim limitations
require a separate and distinct process that analyzes and utilizes the
conditions of the query/transactions in the determining and selecting steps.
(See App. Br. 6-7.) Claim 2 recites no such requirement. Claim 2 merely
requires determining the domain (range of values) based on the selected
column values (i.e., based on the transaction/query conditions) and selecting
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

13
a second data type, which has a smaller storage requirement than the first
data type, based on the domain. Appellants’ Specification also explains that
the domain determination may be made based on the data selection itself –
“data type transformation routine 28 then determines . . . the data
demographics of each selected column based on a condition (or plural
conditions) to be applied during the transaction. . . . Based on the
condition(s) to be applied by the transaction, the data type transformation
routine 28 determines . . . the domain of data values to be stored.” (FF 2; see
Spec. ¶¶ [0018]-[0019].
As explained by the Examiner, Santosuosso discloses a range of
representation values (a domain) – integers 1-50 – representing the names of
States (States of the United States of America) and the selection of a single
byte code as the data type (second data type) to which the alphanumeric
State names can be converted. (See Ans. 12; Santosuosso – ¶ [0038]; Fig.
2B.) Therefore, we find that Santosuosso discloses determining a domain of
possible values based on the selected values of the column and selecting the
second data type, having a smaller storage requirement than the first data
type, based on the range of the selected values.
Thus, we find that Santosuosso anticipates the disputed features of
Appellants’ representative claim 2. We find Appellants’ contrary arguments
unpersuasive.
Appellants do not separately argue independent claims 13 and 21 nor
dependent claims 3-9, 11, 12, 15-20, and 23-34 (supra), all of which include
limitations of similar scope to the disputed limitations discussed with respect
to claim 2. It follows that Appellants do not persuade us of error in the
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

14
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 2-9, 11-13, 15-21, and 23-34,
and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Arguments Concerning the Examiner’s Rejection of
Representative Claim 10 Under § 102
The Examiner rejects Appellants’ dependent claim 10 as being
anticipated by Santosuosso. (Ans. 6, 13.) Specifically, the Examiner finds
that Santosuosso discloses a transaction specifying an enumerated list of
values and performing value list compression based on the enumerated list
(citing Santosuosso ¶¶ [0046], [0061]). (Ans. 6, 13.)
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of representative claim 10. We agree with Appellants
that Santosuosso does not disclose at least value list compression. (App. Br.
7-8; Reply Br. 3-4.)
Although Santosuosso discusses compression generally (see ¶ [0061])
and utilizing data representations as a form of compression (see ¶¶ [0038],
[0058]), we find the Examiner’s citation to paragraphs [0046] and [0061] is
uninstructive with respect to either enumerated lists or value list
compression. Appellants explain value list compression as replacing column
values with encoded values and storing the corresponding values in a
separate table. (See Spec. ¶¶ [0027]-[0029].) Claim 10 requires performing
value list compression on the second table (not the first table). Therefore,
we find Santosuosso’s general teaching of compression is not equivalent to
and does not sufficiently disclose the recited value list compression. In
reviewing Santosuosso, we find no mention of compression with respect to a
second table (e.g., encoded vector index or representation table). Thus, we
disagree with the Examiner that Santosuosso discloses the disputed feature.
Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

15
Absent a convincing explanation from the Examiner in support of why
the cited portions of Sanosuosso are deemed to disclose the disputed
features, we are left to speculate how and why the reference is being applied.
We decline to engage in speculation. Consequently, we are constrained by
the record before us to find that Santosuosso does not anticipate each recited
feature of Appellants’ claim 10, and thus the rejection of claim 10 fails to
establish a case of prima facie anticipation.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 10.
Note on Arguments Concerning the Examiner’s Rejection of
Representative Claim 13 Under § 102
Appellants did not separately argue claim 13 in their Appeal Brief.
(See supra; App. Br. 9.) Instead, Appellants merely stated that “[f]or similar
reasons as stated above with respect to claim 2, Santosuosso clearly does not
disclose the above combination of claim elements.” (App. Br. 9.) In their
Reply Brief, Appellants present for the first time nominal arguments with
respect to the patentability of Claim 13 and its dependent claims. (Reply Br.
4.) To the extent Appellants present additional separate arguments with
respect to claim 13 in their Reply Brief, we deem these arguments to be
waived as untimely. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI
2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make
arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to
rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.”).

Appeal 2009-007569
Application 10/770,792

16
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
2-9, 11-13, 15-21, and 23-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-9, 11-13, 15-21, and
23-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).

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)(v).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

peb