Appeal No. 2004-0076
Application No. 09/477,463
Finally, in response to appellant’s allegation that Chaudhuri fails to disclose “a
stored procedure that obtains index information,” (Brief at 7), we remind appellant that
the invention that is claimed relates to an index advisor invoking a stored procedure in
order to obtain information for the index configuration, rather than a stored procedure
that obtains index information.
Turning to the Section 103 rejection, representative claim 4 adds the limitation
that the SQL statements2 of the workload are obtained from a cache maintained by the
remote database management system. The examiner submits Bird as evidence of the
well-known advantages of cache memory, and specifically the advantages of cache
memory for SQL statements in a relational database management system. Appellant
relies on the position that Bird fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Chaudhuri.
(Brief at 7.) The examiner has thus set forth a reasonable case for showing prima facie
obviousness of the subject matter of instant claim 4, which remains unrebutted by
appellant.
In view of the foregoing we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 9-11, and 17-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Chaudhuri and the rejection of claims 4,
12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhuri and Bird.
2 We observe in passing that the claim 4 recitation of “the SQL statements” lacks proper
antecedent, as earlier claim 3 sets forth “at least one” SQL statement (i.e., not necessarily a plurality of
statements).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007