Appeal No. 2004-0076
Application No. 09/477,463
Claims 4, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chaudhuri and Bird.
Claims 5-8, 13-16, and 21-24 are objected to, but allowable if rewritten in
independent form.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 6) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 12)1 for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 11), the
Reply Brief (Paper No. 13), and the Supplemental Reply Brief (Paper No. 16) for
appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellant contends that the rejected claims stand or fall together. We select
claim 1 as representative in our review of the Section 102 rejection over Chaudhuri.
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Chaudhuri discloses (Fig. 2) a database 210, a database server 220, and an
index selection tool 300. Database server 220 processes queries to manipulate data in
database 210. Database server 220 comprises a storage engine 230 for accessing
data in database 210, and a query optimizer 240 that uses indexes of a selected index
configuration 302 to more efficiently access data in database 210. Index selection tool
1 The examiner mailed a later Answer (Paper No. 15), to which appellant responded with a
supplemental reply brief. The rejections and responsive arguments in papers 12 and 15 appear not to
differ in substance.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007