Ex Parte Santosuosso

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 29, 2010

11149489 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 2010)

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.
11/149,489 06/09/2005 John Matthew Santosuosso ROC920050115US1 1698
46296 7590 11/30/2010
MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
P.O. BOX 548
CARTHAGE, MO 64836-0548
EXAMINER
KUDDUS, DANIEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2010 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 JOHN MATTHEW SANTOSUOSSO
____________

Appeal 2009-008262
Application 11/149,489
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and ST. JOHN
COURTENAY III Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL 1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE"
(paper delivery mode) or the "NOTIFICATION DATE" (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-008262
Application 11/149,489
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, and 11. The Appellant
appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

INVENTION
The Appellant describes the invention at issue on appeal as follows.
[A] database query processor includes a HAVING clause
processing mechanism that processes the HAVING clause in a
query when generating the intermediate results, instead of
generating the intermediate results without regard to the
HAVING clause, then applying the HAVING clause to the
intermediate results. As a result, the size of the intermediate
results may be significantly reduced, and effort is not wasted in
placing data into the intermediate results in one step that would
be removed were the HAVING clause processed separately.
(Spec. 2.)

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor;
a memory coupled to the at least one processor;
a database query residing in the memory that includes a
SELECT clause and a HAVING clause; and
a query processor residing in the memory and executed by
the at least one processor, the query processor processing the
database query and including only data that satisfies both the
Appeal 2009-008262
Application 11/149,489
3
SELECT clause and the HAVING clause in a temporary table
that holds intermediate results for the database query, wherein
the temporary table never includes data that satisfies the
SELECT clause without satisfying the HAVING clause and
never includes data that satisfies the HAVING clause without
satisfying the SELECT clause, wherein the query processor
analyzes an index in generating the intermediate results, skips
entries in the index that do not satisfy both the SELECT clause
and the HAVING clause, and generates a final result set for the
database query from the intermediate results in the temporary
table.

REJECTION
Claims 1, 6, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over US 6,785,668 B1 ("Polo") and US 2003/0055814 A1
("Chen").

ISSUE
The Examiner admits that "Polo et al. explicitly does not teach
wherein the query processor analyzes an index in generating the
intermediate results, skips entries in the index that do not satisfy both
the SELECT clause and the HAVING clause." (Ans. 5.) He finds
"[h]owever Chen et al. [does] teach such limitations . . . ." (Id.) The
Appellant argues that "[n]owhere does Chen teach or suggest skipping
entries in the index." (Reply Br. 7.) Therefore, the issue before us is
whether the Examiner erred in finding that Chen discloses skipping entries
in a database's index that do not satisfy both the SELECT clause and the
HAVING clause of a database query as required by claims 1, 6, and 11.

Appeal 2009-008262
Application 11/149,489
4
FINDINGS OF FACT
Chen "relates to a method, system, and program for processing
queries involving set operations." (¶ [0002.)

ANALYSIS
"A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis. .
. ." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). "The Patent Office
has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not
. . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction
to supply deficiencies in its factual basis." Id.
Here, the Examiner explains his finding that Chen "discloses claim
recites limitations 'query processor analyzes an index in generating the
intermediate results, skip entries in the index'" (Ans. 13) as follows.
([S]ee Chen et al. paragraph [0004], an index is comprised of
rows or index entries which include an index key and a pointer
to a database record, § [0027], early evaluation of the predicates
with any indexes to further reduce the number of rows before
the final result table is materialized, § [0042], distribute the
WHERE clause, perform the additional operation of eliminating
rows, § [0036], intermediate results are then combined to
produce the result, figure 2, § [0021], § [0029], § [0030],
materialize any intermediate table resulting upon which further
WHERE operations are performed, page 8 and 9, claim 40).
(Ans. 13.)
Some of these paragraphs do mention an index for a database. We
agree with the Appellant, however, that "[t]he [E]xaminer has completely
failed to show any teaching in Chen of skipping entries in [that] index."
(Reply Br. 7.) The Examiner's explanation does not even mention the word
"skip" or any variation thereof. Furthermore, the Appellant avers that his
Appeal 2009-008262
Application 11/149,489
5
"text search of Chen shows no occurrence of the word 'skip', no occurrence
of the word 'skips', and no occurrence of the word 'skipped.'" (Id.)
Of course, obviousness is not an ipsissimis verbis test. If the
Examiner is interpreting some other operation in the cited paragraphs to
constitute skipping entries in a database's index, however, he has the duty of
explaining that interpretation. We will not resort to speculation or
assumptions about his interpretations.
Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, we conclude that the
Examiner erred in finding that Chen discloses skipping entries in a
database's index that do not satisfy both the SELECT clause and the
HAVING clause of a database query as required by claims 1, 6, and 11.

DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 11. No time for taking
any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

REVERSED

Tkl

MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
P.O. BOX 548
CARTHAGE MO 64836-0548