Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2012

11098887 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 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.
11/098,887 04/04/2005 Zhen Hua Liu 50277-2709 8759
42425 7590 10/29/2012
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
NG, AMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2012 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 ZHEN HUA LIU, MURALIDHAR
KRISHNAPRASAD, and JAMES W. WARNER
____________________

Appeal 2010-004655
Application 11/098,887
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and TREVOR M.
JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004655
Application 11/098,887

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 25
and 28. Claims 13, 14 and 17 were allowed. Claims 1-12, 15-16, 18-24, 26,
27, and 29-51 were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to query processing for supporting XML
sequence type and XQuery sequence natively in a SQL system. Spec.
¶ [0008]. Claims 25 and 28, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
25. A method of processing a Structured Query Language
(SQL) query, comprising:
processing a query that contains at least one SQL
function that has an input parameter that is of Extensible
Markup Language (XML) sequence type and (b) produces
output that is not of XML sequence type; and
evaluating the SQL function;
wherein an input parameter of the SQL function is a first
instance that (a) is of XML sequence type and (b) is a sequence
of items, wherein the output of the SQL function is a SQL
collection of XMLType instances, wherein each XMLType
instance in the output SQL collection of instances is of XML
sequence type, and wherein for each particular item in the input
sequence of items, the output SQL collection contains a
separate instance that corresponds to the particular item.

28. A method of processing a Structured Query Language
(SQL) query, comprising:
processing a query that contains at least one SQL
function that (a) does not take any Extensible Markup
Language (XML) type as input and (b) produces output that is
of XML sequence type; and
evaluating the SQL function;
Appeal 2010-004655
Application 11/098,887

3
wherein an input parameter of the SQL function is a SQL
scalar value, wherein the output of the SQL function is an
instance that (a) is of XML sequence type and (b) is a sequence
of an XQuery atomic value, and wherein the SQL scalar value
is equal to the XQuery atomic value.

REJECTIONS
Claims 25 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being
anticipated by Jonathan Gennick, “SQL in, XML Out,” Oracle Magazine
May/June 2003 (“Gennick”). Ans. 4.

OPINION
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that Gennick discloses
(a) that the XMLConcat function accepts input instances that are of
XML sequence type and is a sequence of items and the output “is a
SQL collection of XMLType instances, wherein each XMLType
instance in the output SQL collection of instances is of XML
sequence type, and wherein for each particular item in the input
sequence of items, the output SQL collection contains a separate
instance that corresponds to the particular item” as recited in claim
25; and
(b) that the XMLForest function produced “the output of the SQL
function is an instance that … is a sequence of an XQuery atomic
value, and wherein the SQL scalar value is equal to the XQuery
atomic value” as recited in claim 28?

Appeal 2010-004655
Application 11/098,887

4
ANALYSIS
Claim 25
With respect to claim 25, Appellants contend that the XMLConcat in
Gennick cited by the Examiner does not disclose an SQL function that
“takes a single instance as input and generates multiple instances as output.”
Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Thus, Gennick fails to disclose “the output SQL
collection [that] contains a separate instance that corresponds to the
particular item” as recited in claim 25. Appellants also contend that Gennick
fails to disclose “that XMLConcat accepts as input instances that are of the
type XML sequence.” Br. 5.
The Examiner argues that XMLType is disclosed by Gennick because
XMLConcat takes two or more XML values which constitute an XML
sequence. Ans. 7. Furthermore, the Examiner found that the output of
XMLConcat produces “an aggregation of the XML sequence provided via
the input” where “each separate instance of the XML value presented in the
output string corresponds to [the XML] value within the XML sequence” at
the input. Id.
Having reviewed the Appellants’ argument and the Examiner’s
response, we do not find that the Examiner has shown that the XMLConcat
function produces output that has multiple instances. The Examiner has not
shown that XMLConcat which combines two or more XML values together
to form a single string (Ans. 7) discloses the claim 25 limitation requiring
that “the output SQL collection contains a separate instance that corresponds
to the particular item” (Br. 5-6).
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner erred in finding
that Gennick disclosed that the output of XMLConcat “is a SQL collection
Appeal 2010-004655
Application 11/098,887

5
of XMLType instances, wherein each XMLType instance in the output SQL
collection of instances is of XML sequence type, and wherein for each
particular item in the input sequence of items, the output SQL collection
contains a separate instance that corresponds to the particular item.” We
reverse the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being
anticipated by Gennick.
Claim 28
Appellants contend that the XMLForest function in Gennick fails to
disclose the claim 28 recitation that “the output of the SQL function is an
instance that … is a sequence of an XQuery atomic value.” Br. 7.
Specifically, Appellants maintain that XQuery is a standard that differs from
XML/SQL standards discussed in Gennick. Id.
The Examiner found that the XMLForest function produces a “single
XML element returned in the forest [that] is an [XQuery] atomic value
because XML elements are values from an [XML] document.” Ans. 8. The
Examiner continues that “since the value is part of an XML document, then
the value is an [XQuery] atomic value.” Id.
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner has not
adequately shown that Gennick discloses that XMLForest produces a
XQuery atomic value sufficient to support that the XMLForest function in
Gennick anticipates claim 28. Gennick does not disclose that the
XMLForest function that outputs “a forest containing a single XML
element” that is an xml value equal to the relational value input is also an
XQuery atomic value. Accordingly, we find that the XMLForest function in
Gennick does not disclose that “the output of the SQL function is an instance
Appeal 2010-004655
Application 11/098,887

6
that … is a sequence of an XQuery atomic value, and wherein the SQL
scalar value is equal to the XQuery atomic value” as recited in claim 28.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 28
under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Gennick.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 28 is
reversed.

REVERSED

msc