Ex Parte Wong

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2014

10786941 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2014)

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.
10/786,941 02/24/2004 Daniel Manhung Wong 50277-2406 3803
42425 7590 02/14/2014
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
PHAM, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2014 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 DANIEL MANHUNG WONG
____________

Appeal 2011-007955
Application 10/786,941
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before GLENN J. PERRY, SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, and
STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GLENN J. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Patent Applicant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection
1
of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.

I. BACKGROUND
Applicant’s disclosed invention relates to executing database
statements. It describes sending control information in the form of a “tag”
appended to a database statement to be executed. The control information is

1
Final Office Action (FOA) mailed July 21, 2010.
Appeal 2011-007955
Application 10/786,941

2

separately processed and instructs a database server how the database
statement is to be processed, e.g., security access, priority, quality of service,
scheduling, and or use supplied routines, messaging and classifying traffic at
a network node. See generally Abstract and Background. An embodiment
is illustrated in Application Figure 1, reproduced below.

Application Figure 1
Application Figure 1 shows a system in which control information is sent
with a database statement, upon which an embodiment of the invention may
be implemented.
Appeal 2011-007955
Application 10/786,941

3

Tag 103(b) is appended to database statement 103a. Parser 106 in
database server 104 removes the tag for processing separately from database
statement 103a.
The following Examiner rejections are appealed:
1. Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 14-21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as allegedly anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2005/0050046 A1 (Puz). Ans. 4-11.
2

2. Claims 5, 10-13, and 22-25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as allegedly unpatentable in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2005/0050046 A1 (Puz) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2003/0014394 A1 (Fujiwara). Ans. 12-18.

II. DISCUSSION
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 14-21, and 26
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized in italics:
l. A machine-implemented method for executing a database
statement, the method comprising the steps of:

a database server receiving a request to execute the database
statement, wherein the request includes the database statement
and a tag that does not conform to a database language of said
database statement, wherein said tag is not embedded in said
database statement;

2
Examiner Answer (Ans.) mailed March 31, 2011.
Appeal 2011-007955
Application 10/786,941

4

wherein said tag specifies at least one parameter field and at
least one parameter value;

in response to receiving the request, said database server storing
information from the tag in a manner that is associated with
said database statement and accessible to a tag access
mechanism;

said database server executing said database statement, wherein
during execution of said database statement said database server
provides access to one or more of the at least one parameter
value through said tag access mechanism provided by said
database server.
(emphasis added)

Applicant argues that Puz does not show a tag that is included in a
request to execute a database statement and is not embedded in the database
statement. App. Br. 10.
The Examiner points to Puz Figure 2, reproduced below.
Appeal 2011-007955
Application 10/786,941

5

Puz Figure 2
Puz Figure 2 is an illustration of exemplary client-side query processing.

The Examiner’s regards the “request” as elements 34, 36, 38 and the
“database statement” as elements 40, 42, 44. Ans. 19. As such, the Puz
“Marker 1” would not be embedded as claim 1 requires. Applicant,
Appeal 2011-007955
Application 10/786,941

6

however, regards Puz “Marker 1,” “Marker 2,” and “Marker 3” as being
embedded in a database statement that includes portions “SQL 1,” “SQL 2,”
and “SQL 3.” According to Applicant, these markers act as placeholders for
additional SQL code to be substituted for them after they are interpreted. As
such, they would be embedded. App. Br. 11-12. Applicant’s interpretation
is the correct one.
Applicant points to Puz paragraph [0033] which refers to elements 34,
36 and 38 as “query parts” including respective SQL parts 40, 42, 44. Puz
paragraph [0033] also tells us that the “final SQL string” is formed from the
respective SQL parts along with the SQL code substituted for the markers.
We conclude from this description that the markers are indeed “embedded”
within an SQL database query. As such, Puz does not meet the claim
limitation requiring that the tag not be embedded.
We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims based on Puz. Independent claim 14 also requires that the
tag not be embedded. For the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 14 and its dependent claims.
Claims 5, 11-13, and 22-25
Fujiwara does not overcome the deficiency of Puz, noted above.
Therefore, we also do sustain the rejection of the dependent claims relying
on Puz and Fujiwara.

III. CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-26 is reversed.

REVERSED
kis