Ex Parte Soylemez et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 19, 2011

10841941 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 19, 2011)

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