Ex Parte Folkert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2013

11083830 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013)

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.
11/083,830 03/18/2005 Nathaniel Keith Folkert 50277-2562 9727
42425 7590 05/01/2013
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
WITZENBURG, BRUCE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2013 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 NATHANIEL KEITH FOLKERT,
ABHINAV GUPTA, and ANDREW WITKOWSKI
____________________

Appeal 2010-007507
Application 11/083,830
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007507
Application 11/083,830

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
1

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-20.
2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Introduction
The claims are directed to using join dependencies in refreshing one
or more materialized views. Spec. at 59, Abstract. Claims 1 and 11,
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A machine-implemented method, comprising:
evaluating a definition of a materialized view based on a
base table, wherein the base table is partitioned into a plurality
of partitions based on a partition key;
wherein the step of evaluating includes determining that
the definition is based on a join dependency of the partition key
of said base table; and
based on the evaluating, generating a refresh expression
that includes a restriction based on said partition key;
wherein the steps of evaluating and generating are
performed by a computing device.

11. A machine-readable storage medium storing one or more
sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more
processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a
method, the method comprising:
evaluating a definition of a materialized view based on a
base table, wherein the base table is partitioned into a plurality
of partitions based on a partition key;

1
Throughout the decision, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Aug 4, 2009), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 28, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 30, 2009).
2
The Real Party in Interest is Oracle International Corporation.
Appeal 2010-007507
Application 11/083,830

3
wherein the step of evaluating includes determining that
the definition is based on a join dependency of the partition key
of said base table; and
based on the evaluating, generating a refresh expression
that includes a restriction based on said partition key.

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claim 1-20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being
anticipated by Oracle, Oracle9i Materialized Views, An Oracle White Paper
(May 2001) (hereinafter “Oracle9i White Paper”). Ans. 3-8.

Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the Oracle9i White Paper
discloses the independent claim 1 and 11 limitation of “evaluating a
definition of a materialized view based on a base table . . . wherein the step
of evaluating includes determining that the definition is based on a join
dependency of the partition key of said base table?”
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred by finding “that tracking
changes to partitioned base tables and accessing partitions of base tables
inherently include a step of determining that the definition of a materialized
view is based on a join dependency of a partition key of the underlying base
tables.” App. Br. 9. (Emphasis omitted.) Appellants contend that paragraph
[0033] of Appellants’ Specification defines “join dependency” (App. Br. 10)
and that the Oracle9i White Paper does not expressly or inherently disclose
independent claims 1 and 11 limitation of “evaluating the definition includes
determining that the definition is based on a join dependency of the partition
Appeal 2010-007507
Application 11/083,830

4
key of the underlying base table because it does not disclose anything that
corresponds to the join dependency. App. Br. 9-10; Reply 4-8.
The Examiner acknowledges that Appellants, acting as their own
lexicographer, defines “join dependency as ‘an expression reachable from
the partitioning column based on the join graph of the query.’” Ans. 11
(quoting Spec., ¶[0033]). The Examiner argues however, that the Oracle9i
White Paper’s implementation of “partition change tracking” as disclosed in
the Oracle9i White Paper, pg. 14 “Partition Maintenance Operations and
Materialized Views,” discloses the broadly claimed “evaluating” step
because “‘determining that the definition is based on a join dependency of
the partition key of said base table’ merely requires a ‘realization’ that the
join dependency exists.” Ans. 12. (Emphasis omitted.) Furthermore, the
Examiner argues “partition change tracking” is well known in the art to
include “broad actions [such] as ‘evaluating’ and ‘determining’ information
about the definition of the materialized view.” Ans. 12.
ANALYSIS
We disagree with the Examiner only as it relates to
“partition change tracking” disclosing the “‘determining that the definition is
based on a join dependency” limitation. We are not persuaded by the
Examiner’s arguments that the evaluating and determining limitations of
claims 1 and 11 are inherently or broadly disclosed in the partition change
tracking of the Oracle9i White Paper. We agree that Appellants’
Specification defines “join dependency” as “[a]n expression on a select list
of a query . . . reachable from the partitioning column based on the join
graph of the query”. See Spec., ¶[0033]; see also Ans. 10; App. Br. 9.
Appellants also explicitly define “materialized view (MV)” as “a view for
Appeal 2010-007507
Application 11/083,830

5
which the results of the predefined query are stored as precomputed values.
A MV is the stored version of the virtual table created by a view” (Spec.
¶[0014]).
We note Appellants have not explicitly defined the terms
“determining,” “definition,” “partition,” “partition key” or “join graph” in
their Specification. We also note that Appellants definition of “join
dependency” refers to a “partitioning column,” while Appellants’ claims
broadly refer to partitioning and partition key. See Ans 13, 14 (discussing
partitions, partitioning and partition keys). We do not find error in the
Examiner’s interpretations of such terms as used in Appellants’ claims. See
Ans. 12-14. However, even taking a broad, but reasonable interpretation of
this term in light of the Specification, the Examiner has failed to set forth
with sufficient specificity that the White Paper’s disclosure of “partition
change tracking” includes or discloses the step of determining that the
definition of a materialized view (stored version of the virtual table created
by a view) is based on a join dependency (the definition is reachable from
the partitioning column based on the join graph of the definition) of a
partition key of the underlying base tables. See Ans. 11-12.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner erred in finding
that the White Paper’s partition change tracking discloses the limitation of
“evaluating a definition of a materialized view based on a base table . . .
wherein the step of evaluating includes determining that the definition is
based on a join dependency of the partition key of said base table” as recited
in independent claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C §102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 and
Appeal 2010-007507
Application 11/083,830

6
their dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20. Because this issue is dispositive, we
do not reach the Appellants’ remaining arguments.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

ke