Ex Parte Chakkappen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 2016

12181994 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/181,994 07/29/2008 Sunil P. Chakkappen 42425 7590 06/29/2016 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. 50277-3378 2936 EXAMINER KUDDUS, DANIEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2016 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 SUNIL P. CHAKKAPPEN and MOHAMED ZAIT Appeal2014-004582 Application 12/181,994 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 23--40. (App. Br. 10.) Claims 1-22 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to database systems, and in particular, to techniques for gathering information on, and using, columns and expressions in database systems. (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 23, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal2014-004582 Application 12/181,994 23. A computer-implemented method, comprising steps of: storing statistics about expression values that are each the result of a non-simple expression that is based on each column of a column group of columns of a table, wherein each column of said column group contains column values; wherein said non-simple expression maps each expression value of said expression values to a respective combination of column values, said respective combination comprising one column value from each column of said column group, wherein said non- simple expression preserves uniqueness of said each expression value to said respective combination of column values; after storing said statistics about expression values that are each the result of a non-simple expression that is based on each column of a column group of columns of a table: receiving a query expression that includes a query predicate express10n; based on the statistics, estimating the selectivity of the query predicate expression; wherein said query predicate expression references at least two columns of said column group; and wherein the steps are performed by one or more computing devices. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Zuzarte Jakobsson et. al. Shankar et al. US 2003/0084025Al US 2004/0225639 Al US 2005/0251511 Al 2 May 1, 2003 Nov. 11, 2004 Nov. 10, 2005 Appeal2014-004582 Application 12/181,994 REJECTIONS Appellants seek our review of the following rejections: Claims 23-27, 29-36, and 38--40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Jakobsson and Zuzarte. (Non-Final Act. 3.) Claims 28 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Jakobsson, Zuzarte, and Shankar. (Non-Final Act. 11.) ANALYSIS Claim 23 Appellants argue the combination of Jakobsson and Zuzarte does not teach or suggest the storing statistics 1 and mapping2 limitations of claim 23. (App. Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 2-5.) The Examiner provides three alternative bases for finding that Jakobsson teaches or suggests these limitations. (Ans. 4--8.) We address the Examiner's primary basis (set forth on pages four to five of the Answer) for which the Examiner relies on, inter alia, Jakobsson's teachings regarding dynamic sampling, database statements, predicate selectivities, generating and computing sample statistics, using columns 1This limitation reads: "storing statistics about expression values that are each the result of a non-simple expression that is based on each column of a column group of columns of a table, wherein each column of said column group contains column values." (Claims Appendix.) 2 This limitation reads: "wherein said non-simple expression maps each expression value of said expression values to a respective combination of column values, said respective combination comprising one column value from each column of said column group, wherein said non-simple expression preserves uniqueness of said each expression value to said respective combination of column values." (Claims Appendix.) 3 Appeal2014-004582 Application 12/181,994 (e.g., cl and c2), summing columns (e.g., sums of cl and c2), storing statistics, and dividing values from columns (e.g., dividing the sum of c2 by cl) for these limitations. (Ans. 4--5, citing Jakobsson i-fi-130, 73, 75, 76, 79, 93, 95, 105.) Appellants present four arguments as to why the Examiner erred regarding this basis for the rejection. First, Appellants argue that columns c 1 and c2 are not columns in a table or columns in column group of columns of a table, but rather query created columns of a query created view. (Reply Br. 2-3.) We are not persuaded by this argument because even if columns c 1 and c2 are created by a query created view, Appellants have not set forth any persuasive arguments or evidence indicating that the columns are not columns in a column group of columns of a table. (Id.) Jakobsson, in fact, uses the term "columns" to refer to columns in a table. Jakobsson explains: "In relational database systems, the data containers are referred to as tables, the records are referred to as rows, and the fields are referred to as columns." (Jakobsson i1 2. (emphasis added)) Second, Appellants argue that each of sum( c 1) and sum( c2) is a combination of multiple rows in a single column, rather than an expression value corresponding to a combination of column values of multiple columns in a table. (Reply Br. 3.) We are not persuaded by this argument because it does not address the Examiner's finding that the division of the sum(cl) by the sum( c2) teaches the claimed expression value. (Ans. 4.) As Appellants note, sum( c 1) and sum( c2) are based on the sums of the values in their columns, and Appellants have not presented any persuasive arguments or evidence that the division of sum( c 1) by sum ( c2) is not based on each column group of a column group of columns of a table. (Reply Br. 3.) 4 Appeal2014-004582 Application 12/181,994 Third, Appellants argue that the values in c 1 and c2 are not expression values of an expression that preserves the uniqueness of each expression value. (Reply Br. 3.) We are not persuaded by this argument because it does not address the Examiner's finding that the sum of c 1 and c2 and the division of the sum of c2 by cl are expression values. (Ans. 4.) Fourth, Appellants argue that in Jakobsson columns cl and c2 and their sums only temporarily exist and, therefore, are not stored. (Reply Br. 3.) We are not persuaded. Appellants do not present any persuasive arguments or evidence indicating that claim 23 precludes temporary storage. The Specification, in fact, uses the term storage to refer to more than permanent or static storage, labelling random access memory and dynamic storage as storage: "random access memory (RAM) or other dynamic storage device." (Spec. i-f 48.) Appellants argue that receiving a predicate expression after storing statistics about expression values would change Jakobsson's principle of operation and teach away from the claimed invention because Jakobsson generates statistics after receiving a query. (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 6.) We are not persuaded by this argument because Appellants present no persuasive arguments or evidence indicating that storing statistics from prior queries would alter Jakobsson's principle of operation and teach away from the claimed invention. (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 6.) The fact that Jakobsson itself may not disclose storing statistics from prior queries does not mean that it teaches away from such a step. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 23 and of claims 24-- 27, 29-36, and 38--40, not separately argued. (App. Br. 9.) 5 Appeal2014-004582 Application 12/181,994 Claims 28 and 37 Appellants present the same arguments for claims 28 and 37 as they do for claims 23 and 32, respectively. (App. Br. 10.) Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 28 and 37. DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 23--40. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6