Ex Parte Soylemez et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 19, 201110841941 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 19, 2011) 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. 10/841,941 05/06/2004 Ekrem Soylemez 50277-2454 9208 42425 7590 04/19/2011 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE 2055 GATEWAY PLACE SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110-1083 EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2165 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/19/2011 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 EKREM SOYLEMEZ, CALEB WELTON, GREGORY DORMAN, MATTHEW DOMBROSKI, ALBERT A. HOPEMAN IV, IGOR LUBASHEV, LEV MARGULIS, CHRISTOPHER KEARNEY, and JAMES CAREY ________________ Appeal 2009-005950 Application 10/841,941 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-40 and 42. Claim 41 is canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2009-005950 Application 10/841,941 2 Invention The invention relates to techniques for efficiently accessing multidimensional data using relational database statements (Spec. 6, ¶ [0017]). Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising the computer-implemented steps of: receiving, at a relational database server, a relational database statement that involves data, from n- dimensional data objects, that is stored according to a multidimensional schema; passing, from said relational database server to a multidimensional database server, first data that is based on information that is contained in said relational database statement; identifying, by the multidimensional database server and based on said first data, a data subset of said n- dimensional data objects; passing, from said multidimensional database server to said relational database server, said data subset; and producing and returning, by said relational database server and in response to said relational database statement, results that are based on values within said data subset. (App. Br. 20, Claims Appendix), References The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence in support of the rejection: Malloy US 5,943,668 Aug. 24, 1999 Lore US 6,163,774 Dec. 19, 2000 Bakalash US 6,385,604 B1 May 7, 2002 Appeal 2009-005950 Application 10/841,941 3 Rejections Claims 1-3, 5-11, 20-23, 25-31, 40, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Malloy. Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Malloy and Bakalash. Claims 12-19 and 32-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Malloy and Lore. ISSUE Based on Appellants’ arguments, we identify the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Malloy discloses a relational database statement received at a relational database server, and first data based on the relational database statement passed from the relational database server to a multidimensional database server for identifying a data subset by the multidimensional database server? FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. 1) Malloy discloses “an OLAP client computer 100 coupled to an OLAP server computer 102” (col. 4, ll. 63-64). In Malloy, a user “interacts with . . . the OLAP client 100” (col. 10, ll. 22- 23) such that a user request “for a database operation . . . [is] formed, which is transmitted to . . . the OLAP server 102 via network interface programs” (col. 10, ll. 25-27). The OLAP server computer 102 of Malloy then “performs various database Appeal 2009-005950 Application 10/841,941 4 operations . . . against one or more relational databases 118” (col. 5, ll. 49-52; Fig. 1). 2) Malloy discloses that “OLAP functionality is characterized by dynamic multi-dimensional analysis of consolidated data” (Col. 2, ll. 14-15) and that “[t]his type of functionality [multi- dimensional data analysis] is also known as on-line analytical processing (OLAP)” (col. 1, ll. 58-59). 3) Malloy discloses “an OLAP server computer 102” (col. 4, l. 64; Fig. 1) that “comprise[s] new elements that access . . . data for the OLAP system in a relational database” (col. 5, ll. 60-62; Fig. 1). PRINCIPLES OF LAW 35 U.S.C. § 102 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 35 U.S.C. § 103 The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appeal 2009-005950 Application 10/841,941 5 ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites, among other things, “receiving, at a relational database server, a relational database statement” and “passing, from said relational database server to a multidimensional database server, first data that is based on information that is contained in said relational database statement” (App. Br. 20, Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds that Malloy discloses “a relational database statement that involves data (See e.g. col. 10, line 24)” (Ans. 3) and that “Malloy teaches a user request for a database operation that is passed to a relational database” (Ans. 13). Thus, the Examiner equates the “user request” of Malloy with the “relational database statement” as claimed. However, in Malloy, the “user request” is received at “the OLAP agent 110 and/or OLAP engine 112” (col. 10, ll. 25-26), which are components of the OLAP server. Since OLAP servers (and internal components) are disclosed as “designed for a wide-range of multi-dimensional reporting” (col. 3, ll. 31- 32) and are therefore “multidimensional database servers” as opposed to relational database servers, we disagree with the Examiner that the “user request” in Malloy is received at a relational database server as recited in claim 1. The Examiner also states that “Malloy clearly teaches a relational database that receives a user request” (Ans. 13). However, Malloy discloses that the user request is received at “the OLAP agent 110 and/or OLAP engine 112 executed by the OLAP server 102” (col. 10, ll. 25-26), which “execute functions . . . to access the multidimensional data from a data storage manager” (col. 10, ll. 28-30), rather than receiving the user request at Appeal 2009-005950 Application 10/841,941 6 a relational database, as the Examiner states. Also, even assuming that the user request is received at a relational database, the Examiner does not state that the user request in Malloy is received at a relational database server. Nor does the Examiner demonstrate that the “database” of Malloy is the same as the claimed “server.” In addition, Malloy discloses that the OLAP server computer receives, then “decomposes,” the user request into values (i.e., “MemberIds” and “RelMemberIds”) that are used to identify and obtain mapped data in a relational database (col. 10, ll. 36-44). Hence, the user request as it is received at the server includes only “sparse index keys” (col. 10, ll. 31-32), which only “identify . . . data blocks in the multi-dimensional database 300” (col. 10, ll. 33-35). While the Examiner states that a “relational database statement is any statement that is understood by a relational database” (Ans. 13), the Examiner has not adequately shown that the relational database in Malloy would “understand” the user request received at the OLAP server computer. In fact, the user request, as received at the OLAP server computer, contains sparse index keys for identifying data in a multi- dimensional database (not a relational database) and is first “decomposed” in the server into “MemberIds” that are “mapped to the RelMemberIds.” These elements are, in turn, used in the relational database. The statement or user request, as received at the server from the client, would not have been “understood” by the relational database without the decomposition that occurs in the server itself. The Examiner further states that “Malloy teaches SQL and relational databases in its field of invention and background” but does not demonstrate that the user request as received at the OLAP server computer (containing Appeal 2009-005950 Application 10/841,941 7 sparse index keys) constitute the SQL statements as is allegedly described in the Field of the Invention or Background sections of Malloy. Even assuming that the user request received at the OLAP server computer in Malloy is a “relational database statement” as the Examiner states, the Examiner has not demonstrated that the OLAP server computer in Malloy, being the “relational database server” (since the OLAP server computer in Malloy supposedly receives the “relational database statement), passes data based on the user request to a multidimensional database server. Rather, in Malloy, the OLAP server computer receives the user request that contains information identifying data in a multidimensional database and also decomposes the request into data that are mapped to a relational database. However, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that Malloy discloses a second server (i.e., the claimed “multidimensional database server”) that receives, for example, the “sparse index key,” the “MemberIds,” the “RelMemberIds,” or any other data based on information contained in the user request from the OLAP server computer in Malloy (i.e., the “relational database server”). We therefore conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Claim 42 recites an apparatus that performs similar steps as recited in claim 1 and claims 21-41 recite a computer storage medium the causes processors to perform similar steps as recited in claim 1. The Examiner does not find that Lore or Bakalash remedies the deficiencies of Malloy. We therefore conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-11, 20-23, 25-31, 40, and 42 as being anticipated by Malloy and claims 4, 12-19, 24, and 32-29 as being obvious over Malloy and any of Bakalash or Lore. Appeal 2009-005950 Application 10/841,941 8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner erred in finding that Malloy discloses a relational database statement received at a relational database server and first data based on the relational database statement passed from the relational database server to a multidimensional database server for identifying a data subset by the multidimensional database server. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1-3, 5-11, 20- 23, 25-31, 40, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 4, 12-19, 24, and 32-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. REVERSED rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation