Ex Parte LeiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201713278095 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation