Appeal 2007-1307
Application 10/454,274
least 128 bits and having storage units of at least 128 bits to process bitmap
index format database structures” as set forth in claims 1, 5, and 9 on appeal
(Reply Br. 13, 14, 25, 30, and 31).
ISSUE
Does the applied prior art teach or would it have suggested to the
skilled artisan all of the features of the claimed invention?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant describes “a method and system for highly efficient database
bitmap index processing” (Specification 1).
2. Appellant states “modern relational database management systems include
the capability to use bitmap indexes as an index format” (Specification 2).
3. The described method “utilizes a microprocessor supporting instructions
for simultaneous processing of at least 128 bits and having storage units of at
least 128 bits to process bitmap index format database structures”
(Specification 3).
4. Appellant states that:
On common processors, such as Intel Pentium,
these storage units can be 8-bit (byte), 16-bit
(word), or 32-bit (double word). In a 32-bit
processor (like the Intel Pentium), it is more
efficient to process bitmaps in 32-bit storage units,
rather than in 8-bit storage units, because the
internal parallelism inherent in a 32-bit processor
allows fewer instructions, memory accesses, and
loop iterations needed to process a bitmap of given
size. For example, given a 4000 byte bitmap, Intel
Pentium could process an AND instruction 4000
times on 8-bit storage units, or could process the
AND instruction 1000 times on 32-bit storage
units. Since it takes approximately the same
amount of time for each individual AND
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013