Ex Parte LI et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 23, 2012

10643628 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 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.
10/643,628 08/18/2003 Wei Li 50277-2250 4451
42425 7590 07/23/2012
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
SAEED, USMAAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

EX PARTE WEI LI, JIANSHENG HUANG, and ARI MOZES
____________

Appeal 2009-014144
Application 10/643,6281
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Oracle International Corporation.
Appeal 2009-014144
Application 10/643,628

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-20, and 22-30, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. Claims 8 and 21 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to techniques for performing
frequent itemset operations. See Spec., 1, ¶ [0002].
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for performing a frequent itemset operation,
the method comprising the steps of:
within a database server that supports a particular
database language, parsing a database statement to detect within
the database statement, a construct that extends the particular
language,
wherein the construct identifies a function that counts
and returns frequent itemsets given a cursor as input to the
function;
wherein the cursor is used by the function to access
values from rows that are returned from a SELECT statement;
wherein the function identifies said frequent itemsets
based on said values from said rows returned by said SELECT
statement;
performing said frequent itemset operation as part of
execution of the database statement to produce results; and
storing the results in a computer-readable storage
medium.

Appeal 2009-014144
Application 10/643,628

3

Appellants appeal the following rejections:

1. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 12-15, 17-20, and 25-28 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal (US 6,324,533 B1,
Nov. 27, 2001) and Chen (US Patent Pub. 2002/0087561 A1, Jul. 4, 2002);
2. Claims 3, 9-11, 16, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal, Chen, and Bayardo (US
6,138,117, Oct. 24, 2000); and
3. Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal, Chen, Bayardo, and Tamura
(US Patent Pub. 2002/0059191 A1, May 16, 2002).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Claims 1-7, 12-20, 22-28, and 30
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of Agrawal and Chen teaches and/or suggests “a function that counts and
returns frequent itemsets,” as claimed?

Appellants contend “the group-by-query of Agrawal does not include
a construct that identifies the recited function as Claim 1 requires.” (App.
Br. 7.) Appellants further contend that “the Comb-K table function (as well
Appeal 2009-014144
Application 10/643,628

4
as the GatherComb-K table function) does not even return frequent
itemsets.” (Id. at 8.)
The Examiner found that in Agrawal “the group-by query preferably
includes the steps of counting the number of transactions that contain each
item and selecting the items that have a support above a user-specified
threshold in determining the frequent itemsets.” (Ans. 21.) We agree with
the Examiner.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions as set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited
to the following points of emphasis.
The recited “function that counts and returns frequent itemsets” is
strikingly similar (at least conceptually) to Agrawal’s group-by query
teachings (see col. 2, ll. 53-56) and GatherJoin approach (see col. 10, ll. 13-
22), and the Examiner’s reliance on this functionality (see Ans. 20-23) is
therefore persuasive.
For example, in Agrawal, the group-by query approach both counts
the number of transactions that contain each item and selects/determines
(i.e., returns) the frequent 1-itemsets. (Agrawal, col. 2, ll. 53-60.) Although
not needed, another example of the claimed function, is Agrawal’s
GatherJoin approach which “is based on the use of table functions . . . and
counts the support of the itemsets . . . and outputs a record for each
transaction.” (Agrawal, col. 10, ll. 13-22.) Appellants even concede that
Agrawal’s disclosed Gather and Comp-K are part of a database statement
that counts and returns frequent itemsets. (see Reply Br., 3.) Whether the
Gather and Comp-K are merely parts of the database statement as opposed
Appeal 2009-014144
Application 10/643,628

5
to the entire database statement is irrelevant as the claim merely requires that
“the construct identifies a function” not that the construct completely defines
the function.
For at least the reasons noted above, we find no error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1, and claims 2-7,
12-20, 22-28, and 30 which are not argued separately.

Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in combining Agrawal with Chen?
Appellants contend that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not
even think to use in Agrawal the modified row-locking cursor approach of
Chen.” (App. Br. 8.)
The Examiner found:
In this case, Agrawal teaches select statements for counting and
finding frequent Itemsets and Chen teaches select statements
providing the declaration of the cursor specifying the columns or rows
of a database table. Therefore, it would have been obvious . . . to
combine . . . because Chen’s teachings would have allowed Agrawal
to provide high concurrency for the rows in the base table when
cursors are used by obtaining a lock on the rows in the base table for
the duration of the cursor operation.

(Ans. 24-25.) We agree with the Examiner.
We point out to Appellants that there is no requirement that the
problem solved by the secondary reference be discussed by the primary
reference to apply the teachings of the secondary reference in a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Supreme Court has held that in analyzing the
obviousness of combining elements, a court need not find specific teachings,
but rather may consider “the background knowledge possessed by a person
having ordinary skill in the art” and “the inferences and creative steps that a
Appeal 2009-014144
Application 10/643,628

6
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” See KSR Int'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). To be nonobvious, an
improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions,” and the basis for an obviousness
rejection must include an “articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id.
The Examiner has found actual teachings in the prior art and has
provided a rationale for the combination. Further, the teachings suggest that
the combination involves the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has
provided sufficient motivation for modifying Agrawal with the teachings of
Chen, and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1-7, 12-20,
and 25-28.

Claims 9-11, 22-24, 29 and 30
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of the cited art teaches and/or suggests the features as set forth in claims 9-
11 and 29?
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claims 9-11 and 29 essentially for the
reasons indicated by the Examiner (see Ans. 25-30).
Specifically, the recited “specify a minimum length” (e.g., claim 9) is
strikingly similar (at least conceptually) to Bayardo’s teaching of frequent
itemsets being more than 10 in length (see Bayardo, col. 9, ll. 56-59); the
recited “specify a maximum length” (e.g., claim 10) is strikingly similar (at
least conceptually) to Bayardo’s teaching of frequent patterns being
Appeal 2009-014144
Application 10/643,628

7
relatively short, e.g., less than 10 items (see Bayardo, col. 1, ll. 24-26); the
recited “specify a set of one or more included items” (e.g., claim 11) is
strikingly similar (at least conceptually) to Agrawal’s teaching of “selecting
distinct first items in the candidate itemsets using a subquery” (see Agrawal,
col. 3. ll. 3-4) ; and the recited “specify a set of one or more excluded items”
(e.g., claim 29) is strikingly similar (at least conceptually) to Tamura’s “is
excluded from the candidate k-itemset” (see Tamura, 1: ¶ [0021]). The
Examiner’s reliance on these functionalities are therefore persuasive.
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 9-11, 22-24, 29, and 30.

In view of the above discussions, since Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the
disclosure of the cited art, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections are
sustained.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) .

AFFIRMED

Vsh