Ex Parte Kulkarni et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201612950156 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/950, 156 11/19/2010 89553 7590 09/02/2016 Law Office of Anthony England IBM SVL 3112 Windsor Road Suite A Austin, TX 78703 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Vaibhav Murlidhar Kulkarni 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. IN920100167US 1 7178 EXAMINER KIM, CHRISTY Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2016 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): a@aengland.com s@aengland.com anthony@maze-england.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte V AIBHA V MURLIDHAR KULKARNI and SWETASINGH Appeal2015-005446 Application 12/950, 156 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-005446 Application 12/950, 156 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 4--7, 10-15, and 18-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The invention relates to retrieving a subset of data from a database by using an optimized database query (Spec. i-f 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer implemented method for optimizing database transactions, comprising: rece1vmg a query, the query specifying (i) a set of predicates supplied to the query and (ii) a minimal number of predicates in the set to be satisfied for a data record to be returned in a query result set; forming a bitwise predicate pattern for each of one of the specified predicates; including forming a unique set of bits for each one of the bitwise predicate patterns, each of the sets of bits having the same number of bits and having only one of the bits turned ON, such that each one of the bitwise predicate patterns uniquely represents a respective one of the predicates, and including forming the set of bits for each one of the bitwise predicate patterns such that the bit that is ON in a set of bits indicates which one of the predicates corresponds to which one of the bitwise predicate patterns; 1 We refer to the Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.") dated Sept. 11, 2013, Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed Feb. 6, 2014, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated June 20, 2014, and Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Aug. 7, 2014. 2 The Examiner indicated pending claims 2, 8, and 16 contain allowable subject matter, but objected to these claims as being dependent on rejected base claims (Non-Final Act. 3). 2 Appeal2015-005446 Application 12/950, 156 generating a logical expression using the sets of bits of the bitwise predicate patterns; performing operations on the logical expression to optimize the query, thereby producing an optimized query; using the optimized query on a repository stored in a computer readable storage medium to find a set of results satisfying the minimal number of predicates; and rendering the set of results satisfying the minimal number of predicates. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Dettinger Okamoto US 2007 /0027845 Al Feb. 1, 2007 US 2007 /0112736 Al May 17, 2007 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1, 4--7, 10-15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dettinger and Okamoto. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Dettinger and Okamoto discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1, including that Okamoto teaches "forming a bitwise predicate pattern for each of one of the specified predicates, including forming a unique set of bits for each one of the bitwise predicate patterns, each of the sets of bits having the same number of bits 3 Appeal2015-005446 Application 12/950, 156 and having only one of the bits turned ON" (Non-Final Act. 5---6). Appellants contend Okamoto fails to teach the limitations for which it is relied upon because "in the Okamoto lineage bit set, each bit represents a respective one of the predicates. In the present case, contrary to Okamoto's teaching, each whole set of bits (i.e., each 'unique set of bits') uniquely represents a respective one of the predicates" (App. Br. 12). We agree with Appellants. Okamoto discloses a lineage bit set 20 for each row in a database table 12, where the lineage bit set is comprised of binary predicate values indicating whether each of a number of predicates for queries applied to the table are met for the table row (Okamoto i-fi-f 18-19; Fig. 1). Specifically, Okamoto describes the following: With reference to queries Q 1 and Q2, for example, the lineage bit sets 20 for each row in Table R include 4 bits that correspond to the 4 predicates PO-P3 associated with the queries. In the example of FIG. 1, lineage bit set 20 for the first row of table R is 1110, which indicates that predicates PO-P2 are met by the data of the first row and that the predicate P3 is not met. (Okamoto i1 33). Here, Okamoto teaches only a single bit for each predicate, not a pattern of multiple bits. Claim 1, on the other hand, requires a pattern formed from "a unique set of bits" for each predicate. The Examiner's response that "each bit of Okamoto's lineage bit set is a subset which uniquely represents a respective one of the predicates by its position in the lineage bit set" (Ans. 2) is unavailing. Even if we considered each bit in Okamoto's lineage bit set to be a subset of the bit set, this still only demonstrates a single bit for each predicate, rather than the claimed multiple bits. 4 Appeal2015-005446 Application 12/950, 156 We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 7 and 15 which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 4---6, 10-14, and 18- 20 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4--7, 10-15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--7, 10- 15, and 18-20 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation