Ex Parte Lahiri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 2012

11956287 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012)

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. 11/956,287 12/13/2007 Tirthankar Lahiri 50277-3192 7219 42425 7590 11/29/2012 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE 1 Almaden Boulevard Floor 12 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 EXAMINER CHEN, TE Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2168 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2012 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 TIRTHANKAR LAHIRI, DHEERAJ PANDEY, JUAN R. LOAIZA, MICHAEL ZOLL, KIRAN B. GOYAL, and NEIL J. S. MACNAUGHTON ____________ Appeal 2010-001693 Application 11/956,287 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-001693 Application 11/956,287 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a partial reverse key index. See Spec. 26, Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method for inserting entries into a hierarchical tree-structured index, the method comprising the steps of: receiving an entry to be inserted into the hierarchical tree-structured index; identifying a key value in said entry, wherein said key value includes at least a first subset of data and a second subset of data; generating a transformed key value by performing an operation on the first subset of data from said key value, without performing said operation on said second subset of data from said key value; generating a transformed entry that includes said transformed key value; storing said transformed entry in a location within said hierarchical tree-structured index that is based upon said transformed key value; wherein said transformed key value causes said transformed entry to be stored in a location within said hierarchical tree-structured index that maintains said entry in at least a partial ordering. Appeal 2010-001693 Application 11/956,287 3 The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Peters US 6,292,795 B1 Sept. 18, 2001 THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Peters. Ans. 3-7.1 ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to be dispositive of the claims on appeal: Under §102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 by finding that Peters anticipates transforming a key value “by performing an operation on the first subset of data from said key value, without performing said operation on said second subset of data from said key value” as set forth in claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Peters fails to teach transforming a key value “by performing an operation on the first subset of data from said key value, without performing said operation on said second subset of data from said key value” (claim 1) and thereafter inserting the index entry based upon the transformed key value. “Because the transformation operation affects the order of the key value, the transformed values associated with two 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 13, 2009; the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 27, 2009; and, the Reply Brief filed November 18, 2009. Appeal 2010-001693 Application 11/956,287 4 consecutive key values will not necessarily be consecutive. Therefore, the index entries associated with the consecutive key values may be inserted into unrelated portions of the index, thereby reducing contention for particular portions of the index.” App. Br. 7. Appellants argue that Peters fails to show such a partial transformation, pointing out that Peters does not transform the key value during tree transversal, citing Peters at column 3, lines 19-31. Further, Appellants argue that “during the hash table phase, the entire key value is transformed, not merely a subset thereof, citing Peters at column 3, lines 31- 37. App. Br. 8. The Examiner finds that the Appellants have failed to specifically define the first subset of data and the second subset of data within the claimed key value, and that consequently those terms are “widely open for reasonable art interpretation.” Ans. 9-10. We disagree with the Examiner’s findings and find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Nothing within Peters teaches or suggests the generation of a transformed key value by performing an operation on a first subset of data within the key value without performing an operation on a second subset of data within the key value. Consequently, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Peters. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 under §102. Appeal 2010-001693 Application 11/956,287 5 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 is reversed. REVERSED llw