Ex Parte Lei

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2017

13278095 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2017)

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.
13/278,095 10/20/2011 Chon Hei Lei 50277-3920 5056
42425 7590 05/30/2017
HTPKMAN PAT F.RMO RFFTCFR RTNOTTAM/OR AFT F
EXAMINER
1 Almaden Boulevard GORTAYO, DANGELINO N
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2017 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHON HEI LEI
Appeal 2015-007805
Application 13/278,095
Technology Center 2100
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—4, 6—14, and 16—20. App. Br. 2.1 Claims 5 and 15
have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”)
mailed December 11, 2013, (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed July 9,
2014, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 10, 2014, and
(4) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed October 31, 2014.
Appeal 2015-007805
Application 13/278,095
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a database system that optimizes
queries for tables that are subject to access-control policies. See Spec. 12.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
1. A method, comprising:
identifying, in a first query, a first expression that includes
a column name identifying a table column; and
rewriting said first query to form a second query that
includes a conditional expression that returns a value from the
table column only when a condition is satisfied;
wherein rewriting said first query to form said second
query includes creating:
(a) a second expression that includes a first alias
that refers by said column name to said conditional
expression, and
(b) a third expression that includes a second alias
that refers to said table column;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Chitkara et al. (“Chitkara”) US 7,743,069 B2 June 22, 2010
Kosciusko et al. (“Kosciusko”) US 8,019,750 B2 Sept. 13, 2011
Claims 1—4, 6—14, and 16—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chitkara and Kosciusko. Final Act. 2—8.
THE EXAMINER’S FINDINGS
The Examiner finds that Chitkara teaches every limitation recited in
independent claim 1 except for the rewriting step, which includes the recited
second expression. Final Act. 2-4. In concluding that claim 1 would have
2
Appeal 2015-007805
Application 13/278,095
been obvious, the Examiner cites Kosciusko as teaching this feature.
Id. at 3.
In particular, the Examiner finds that the recited second expression
corresponds to Kosciusko’s transformed SQL statement, which includes an
alias for a subquery in a FROM clause. Id. (citing Kosciusko col. 14 11. 13—
34) . In addressing the recited second expression, the Examiner further cites
another transformed SQL statement. Ans. 3 (citing Kosciusko col. 19 11. 27—
35) . The Examiner finds that this second SQL statement includes a WHERE
clause and an alias for a column name. Ans. 3. According to the Examiner,
Kosciusko’s expression “WHERE e.emp_seq = d.emp_seq” returns a value
when the condition “e.emp_seq = d.emp_seq” is satisfied, and this
expression appears in the rewritten query as a conditional statement. Id.
at 6; see also id. at 3^4 (citing Kosciusko col. 19 11. 27—35).
The Examiner cites the same portions of Kosciusko in rejecting the
second expression that is recited in independent claim 11. Final Act. 6
(citing Kosciusko col. 14 11. 13—34, col. 19 11. 27—35).
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Appellant argues that Kosciusko lacks the
recited “second expression that includes a first alias that refers by said
column name to said conditional expression.” App. Br. 4—7. Specifically,
Appellant contends that Kosciusko’s alias x and alias e refer to a subquery
and a table, respectively, not to conditional expressions. Id. at 5 (citing
Kosciusko col. 14). Appellant further contends that Kosciusko’s coll and
col2 aliases refer to particular table columns (el.birthdate and dl.birthdate),
not to conditional expressions. App. Br. 5—6 (citing Kosciusko col. 19).
3
Appeal 2015-007805
Application 13/278,095
And according to Appellant, none of the Examiner-cited aliases refers to a
conditional expression by a column name identifying a table column from
the first expression. App. Br. 4—5.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1
and 11 by finding that Kosciusko would have taught or suggested a “second
expression that includes a first alias that refers by said column name to said
conditional expression”?
ANALYSIS
To address the limitation at issue, the Examiner cites two transformed
SQL statements in Kosciusko. See Final Act. 3 (citing Kosciusko col. 14
11. 13—34); Ans. 3 (citing Kosciusko col. 19 11. 27—35). We are persuaded by
Appellant’s argument that neither statement includes an alias that refers by a
column name to a conditional expression. App. Br. 4—7.
Regarding the first SQL statement cited, the Examiner finds that
Kosciusko’s statement includes an alias for a subquery in a FROM clause.
Final Act. 3 (citing Kosciusko col. 14 11. 13—34). In particular, when moving
a subquery to a FROM clause, Kosciusko identifies the criteria in the
surrounding query using an alias. Kosciusko col. 13 11. 64—67. In the cited
example, Kosciusko gives an alias, x, to a subquery. Id. col. 14 11. 16, 21—
28. Kosciusko also adds an alias, e, for the table called employees.
Id. col. 14 11. 14—17. Kosciusko then uses aliases x and e in the transformed,
rewritten expression: “WHERE e.emp_seq = x.emp_seq.” Id. col. 14 11. 26—
4
Appeal 2015-007805
Application 13/278,095
27. The Examiner finds that Kosciusko’s WHERE clauses are conditional
expressions. See Ans. 4, 6.
Although Kosciusko may teach aliases “in the conditional expressions
of the rewritten query” (Final Act. 4) or a WHERE clause that “contains an
alias” in the rewritten expression (Ans. 4), an alias that is part of a
conditional expression is different from an alias that refers to a conditional
expression. That is, these findings (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4) are insufficient to
show that Kosciusko’s aliases x and e refer to the conditional expressions, as
recited (accord App. Br. 5). Rather, these findings at most show that
Kosciusko’s aliases x and e refer to a subquery and a table from within a
conditional expression. Kosciusko col. 14 11. 16—28; accord App. Br. 5.
Notably, the subquery that x refers to contains another WHERE
clause: “WHERE t.rpt_date . . . .” Kosciusko col. 14 11. 24—26. But even if
alias x refers to a conditional statement in this way, the Examiner has not
shown that the alias does so “by said column name,” as recited. That is,
claim 1 requires (1) a first expression that includes a column name, and (2)
an alias that refers by the column name to a conditional expression. But the
Examiner has not identified column x in the first expression or elsewhere.
Accord App. Br. 4—5. On the contrary, alias x only appears in Kosciusko’s
rewritten, transformed statement, not in the original. Compare
Kosciusko col. 14 11. 1—11 with Kosciusko col. 14 11. 21—27.
The Examiner also cites Kosciusko’s SQL statement in column 19.
Final Act. 3 (citing Kosciusko col. 19 11. 27—35); Kosciusko col. 19 11. 51—
57. Like the other SQL statement cited by the Examiner, the statement in
column 19 also uses aliases x and e, which similarly refer to a subquery and
5
Appeal 2015-007805
Application 13/278,095
table. See Kosciusko col. 19 11. 40-58. Additionally, Kosciusko gives an
alias to a column name. Id. col. 19 11. 27—35, cited in Ans. 3.
We, however, agree with Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 6) that
Kosciusko’s alias for a column name does not teach an alias for a
conditional expression. In other words, the claim requires an alias that
refers by the column name, not an alias for the column name. But, in the
cited example, Kosciusko’s aliases, coll and col2, refer to columns, not
conditional expressions as claimed. Kosciusko col. 19 11. 27—35.
Furthermore, like the aliases x and e, Kosciusko’s aliases for the
column names only appear in the rewritten, transformed query, not in the
original query. Compare id. col. 19 11. 40-45 with id. col. 19 11. 51—57.
Thus, Kosciusko’s column-name aliases in the second expression do not
“refer by” a column name used in the first expression, as recited. See id.
col. 1911. 51-57.
Chitkara is not relied upon to teach or suggest the second expression.
Final Act. 3. So, the Examiner has not shown that Chitkara remedies
Kosciusko’s deficiencies.
Because Appellant’s arguments on this issue (App. Br. 4—7) are
dispositive, we need not reach Appellant’s remaining arguments
(Reply Br. 2-4).
Therefore, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11, and dependent claims 2-4, 6—10, 12—14, and
16—20 for similar reasons.
6
Appeal 2015-007805
Application 13/278,095
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—14, and 16—20.
REVERSED
7