Ex Parte Lahiri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2012

11956287 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012)

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.
11/956,287 12/13/2007 Tirthankar Lahiri 50277-3192 7219
42425 7590 11/29/2012
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
CHEN, TE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2012 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 TIRTHANKAR LAHIRI, DHEERAJ PANDEY,
JUAN R. LOAIZA, MICHAEL ZOLL, KIRAN B. GOYAL, and
NEIL J. S. MACNAUGHTON
____________

Appeal 2010-001693
Application 11/956,287
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001693
Application 11/956,287

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a partial reverse key index. See
Spec. 26, Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for inserting entries into a hierarchical
tree-structured index, the method comprising the steps of:

receiving an entry to be inserted into the hierarchical
tree-structured index;

identifying a key value in said entry, wherein said key
value includes at least a first subset of data and a second subset
of data;

generating a transformed key value by performing an
operation on the first subset of data from said key value,
without performing said operation on said second subset of
data from said key value;

generating a transformed entry that includes said
transformed key value;

storing said transformed entry in a location within
said hierarchical tree-structured index that is based upon said
transformed key value;

wherein said transformed key value causes said
transformed entry to be stored in a location within said
hierarchical tree-structured index that maintains said entry in
at least a partial ordering.

Appeal 2010-001693
Application 11/956,287

3
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Peters US 6,292,795 B1 Sept. 18, 2001

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
anticipated by Peters. Ans. 3-7.1

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal:
Under §102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 by
finding that Peters anticipates transforming a key value “by performing an
operation on the first subset of data from said key value, without performing
said operation on said second subset of data from said key value” as set forth
in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Peters fails to teach transforming a key value
“by performing an operation on the first subset of data from said key value,
without performing said operation on said second subset of data from said
key value” (claim 1) and thereafter inserting the index entry based upon the
transformed key value. “Because the transformation operation affects the
order of the key value, the transformed values associated with two

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 13, 2009;
the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 27, 2009; and, the Reply Brief filed
November 18, 2009.
Appeal 2010-001693
Application 11/956,287

4
consecutive key values will not necessarily be consecutive. Therefore, the
index entries associated with the consecutive key values may be inserted into
unrelated portions of the index, thereby reducing contention for particular
portions of the index.” App. Br. 7.
Appellants argue that Peters fails to show such a partial
transformation, pointing out that Peters does not transform the key value
during tree transversal, citing Peters at column 3, lines 19-31. Further,
Appellants argue that “during the hash table phase, the entire key value is
transformed, not merely a subset thereof, citing Peters at column 3, lines 31-
37. App. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds that the Appellants have failed to specifically
define the first subset of data and the second subset of data within the
claimed key value, and that consequently those terms are “widely open for
reasonable art interpretation.” Ans. 9-10.
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings and find Appellants’
arguments persuasive. Nothing within Peters teaches or suggests the
generation of a transformed key value by performing an operation on a first
subset of data within the key value without performing an operation on a
second subset of data within the key value. Consequently, we find the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) over Peters.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 under §102.

Appeal 2010-001693
Application 11/956,287

5
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw