Ex Parte Yoaz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

11781139 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111781,139 0712012007 Adie! Yoaz
42425 7590 09/30/2016
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
50277-3290 5329
EXAMINER
WILLIS, AMANDA LYNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADIEL YOAZ, SRIRAM KRISHNAMURTHY,
and QIN YU
Appeal2014-009960
Application 11/781,139 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, SHARON PENICK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 21-29. Claims 8 and 11-20 are
cancelled. (Appeal Br. 20-21.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b )(1 ).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to compiling and computing database
statements. (Spec. Abstract.) Specifically, the invention relates to table
1 Appellants identify Oracle Corporation as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-009960
Application 11/781,139
functions, which, when executed, internally execute another query and
return the result. According to the invention, during compilation, the
original query is rewritten by replacing the table function with the query it
would execute. In this way, a query containing a table function can be
optimized with respect to both the original query containing the table
function and the internally executed query that would otherwise be executed
by the table function. (Id. i-fi-f 14--15, 23.)
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising steps of:
a database server receiving one or more requests to register
a user-defined table function and a replacement
implementation, said replacement implementation
specifying instructions for generating a replacement
statement with which to replace said user-defined
table function in queries received by said database
server;
in response to receiving said one or more requests, said
database server generating metadata that defines
said user-defined table function and that defines
said replacement implementation as specifying said
instructions for generating a replacement statement
with which to replace said user-defined table
function in queries received by said database server;
compiling a database statement that contains said user-
defined table function;
wherein said compiling said database statement includes:
before generating an execution plan for said
database statement, said database server
rewriting said database statement to generate
a rewritten database statement, wherein said
rewriting said database statement comprises:
2
Appeal2014-009960
Application 11/781,139
to generate a particular replacement database
statement, executing replacement
implementation code that is based on
said replacement implementation, and
replacing said user-defined table function
with said particular replacement
database statement, wherein said
particular replacement database
statement contains, according to a
database query language, a plurality of
clauses;
forming one or more execution plans for computing said
rewritten database statement;
wherein the method is performed by one or more computers.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1---6 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Barsness et al. (US 2005/0154709 Al; July 14, 2005)
and Mattos et al. (US 5,765,147; June 9, 1998). (Final Action 2-20.)
The Examiner rejects claims 7, 9, 10, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Barsness, Mattos, and Lane et al. (Oracle
Database Data Warehousing Guide 2005 lOg Release 2, pp. 1-1, 17-2, 25-
12; Dec. 2005). (Final Action 20-22.)
Issues
A: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Barsness
and Mattos teaches or suggests executing replacement implementation code
based on a replacement implementation to generate a replacement database
statement and replacing a user-defined table function with the replacement
database statement, as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal2014-009960
Application 11/781,139
B: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Barsness
and Mattos teaches or suggests that replacement implementation code is
executed when a database statement is compiled in order to generate a
replacement statement with which to replace a user-defined table function in
a query, as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Issue A: "executing replacement implementation code"
Claim 1 includes the limitation that replacement implementation code,
based on a replacement implementation, be executed to generate a particular
replacement database statement, which is used to replace a user-defined
table function. The claim also includes the limitation that the replacement
implementation and user-defined table function are registered with the
database server.
Appellants argue that Barsness' software instructions used to perform
the replacement of a user-defined function in a query are not received by the
database server when the database server receives the request to register a
user-defined table function. (Appeal Br. 11.) Rather, the software
instructions are part of the provided apparatus. (Appeal Br. 11.)
Additionally, Appellants argue that the software instructions which replace
the user-defined function with the replacement database statement in
Barsness are not based on any replacement implementation, and do not
generate a particular replacement database statement with which the user-
defined table function is replaced. (Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 2-3.)
The Examiner finds that Barsness teaches or suggests this limitation in
its teachings of a backup user-defined function associated with a user-
defined function and the code, which performs the replacement. (Final
4
Appeal2014-009960
Application 11/781,139
Action 2--4, 23-24; Answer 23-24.) The Examiner further finds, "[t]he
language of the claim puts no limitation of where the 'replacement
implementation code' is obtained, merely that it is executed based on the
user registered replacement implementation." (Answer 24.) Thus, the
Examiner finds that a registration of a backup user-defined table function
which can be used to replace a user-defined table function is taught or
suggested in Barsness, and that the Barsness system includes computer code
which performs the replacement teaches or suggests the "replacement
implementation code."
Appellants' arguments do not convince us of error in these findings by
the Examiner. As the Examiner notes, Barsness provides for the registration
of a backup user-defined table function, and the use of that backup when a
user-defined table function is to be replaced. (Barsness i-fi-18, 11, 40-42, 48.)
While we agree with Appellants (Appeal Br. 11) that Barsness does not
specify that the registration of a backup by the user in Barsness occurs when
a request to register a user-defined table function is received by the database
server, we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation
does not put any limitations on when the actual registration should occur and
the recitation "receiving one or more requests to register a user-defined table
function and a replacement implementation," in light of the specification,
also does not require that the database server receive information about a
user-defined table function and the replacement implementation at the same
time. Thus, Barsness teaches a request that a replacement implementation
("backup user-defined table function") is registered for a user-defined table
function. (Barsness i1 41.)
5
Appeal2014-009960
Application 11/781,139
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not
specify how the replacement implementation code is obtained, and that
Barsness teaches or suggests the claimed replacement implementation code
is the code which generates a replacement database statement (substituting
the backup user-defined table function). (Answer 24.)
Barsness teaches that when a backup function is to be used, a query
controller modifies the query to remove the portion of the query that uses the
current user-defined function with the backup user-defined function
specified in the backup field 225 for the user-defined function 220.
(Barsness i-fi-141, 50.) Thus, Barsness teaches or suggests code which, in
combination with the information in the backup fields, is executed to
generate a replacement database statement. We agree with the Examiner
(Answer 24) that this teaches or suggests code, based on the replacement
implementation (backup user-defined function) which generates a
replacement database statement.
Issue B: "compiling a database statement includes ...
executing replacement implementation code"
Claim 1 describes the execution of replacement implementation code
occurring as part of the compilation of a database statement. Appellants
argue that the combination of Barsness and Mattos do not teach the use of
such replacement implementation code to generate a replacement statement
at compile time. (Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2-3.)
The Examiner finds that Barsness teaches checking availability of a
user-defined function and its replacement if unavailable, which, as discussed
supra, the Examiner analogizes to the execution of replacement
implementation code. The Examiner agrees with the Appellants (Appeal Br.
6
Appeal2014-009960
Application 11/781,139
13) that "Barsness does not specify when this checking of availability and
replacement is performed." (Answer 25.) However, the Examiner finds that
this is taught by Mattos.
In Mattos, queries, including those relating to data types not supported
by the database management system, are supported. (Mattos, Abstract.)
Such queries are automatically rewritten or optimized to take advantage of
the indexing techniques. (Id.) User-defined functions are defined and can
be used in queries. (Id. 3:27-34.) At compile time, a check (the
INDEX_EXISTS UDP function) is performed to determine ifthe index used
in a UDP exists, and if so a query rewrite at compile time will occur. (Id.
8:54--59; Fig. 3.) This occurs in order to allow rewriting and optimization of
the query including user-defined functions. (Id. Abstract, 1 :64--65, 8:54--59,
14:46-51.)
Appellants argue that Mattos does not teach executing replacement
implementation code when a database statement is compiled. (Appeal Br.
14; Reply Br. 3.) Appellants argue that Mattos' INDEX_EXISTS UDP is a
check to see if a UDP is available but does not perform the replacement.
Appellants' focus on INDEX_EXISTS UDP does not convince us of
error. This function is used as part of a process in Mattos which leads to the
generation of replacement database statements for a user-defined function.
As discussed above, in Mattos the rewriting of a query occurs as part of a
compiling process and is performed to optimize queries. Thus, Mattos, as a
database management system including RDBMS software (Mattos 1 :30),
includes code which performs the query rewriting as in the disputed
limitation.
7
Appeal2014-009960
Application 11/781,139
Moreover, to the extent that Mattos is used by the Examiner to show
that rewriting of queries to include particular replacement database
statements (as the Examiner finds in Barsness) occurs at compile time, we
agree that this teaching is clearly present in Barsness. The Appellants'
Specification notes that "[ c ]ompiling an SQL statement, as the term is used
herein, refers to the process of determining and optimizing operations or
steps, resources, and/or data structures that are required to evaluate the SQL
statement." (Spec. i-f 7.) Mattos shows that the rewriting taught or suggested
by Barsness would be performed at compile time (Mattos 8:54--59) and used
to optimize queries (Mattos Abstract, 7:43-8:5.) Thus, the combination of
Barsness and Mattos shows that the rewriting of a database statement as
taught by Barsness would be performed at compile time, as in the disputed
limitation.
Appellants further argue that no motivation to combine has been
provided by the Examiner. (Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 6-7.) Since we agree
that such motivation has been shown (see Final Action 5) and disagree with
the Appellants' contentions regarding the teachings of Barsness and Mattos
which underpin Appellants' arguments, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's rejection on this ground.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Barsness and Mattos teaches or suggests the argued
limitations as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 6, 21, and 26. Claims 2-5 and 22-25 were not
separately argued and thus, these claims fall with their respective
independent claims. We additionally find no error in the rejections of claims
7, 9, 10, and 27-29, rejected over the combination of Barsness, Mattos, and
8
Appeal2014-009960
Application 11/781,139
Lane and argued on the same grounds. Therefore, we sustain the rejections
of claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 21-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9, 10, and
21-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
9