95000697 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2015)

Ex Parte 7720861 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 2015

95000697 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2015)

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. 95/000,697 09/14/2012 7720861 6702-00100 3479 35690 7590 09/30/2015 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. P.O. BOX 398 AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398 EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2015 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 ________________ MICROSTRATEGY INC. Requester v. VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE INC. Patent Owner and Appellant ________________ Appeal 2015-004352 Reexamination Control 95/000,697 Patent 7,720,861 B1 Technology Center 3900 ________________ Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Patent Owner appeals the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4. PO App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315, and Appeal 2015-004352 Reexamination Control 95/000,697 Patent 7,720,860 B1 2 we heard oral argument from the Requester in the appeal on September 9, 2015. Claims 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Microsoft Office 97 Help (a printed copy of Microsoft Office 97 On-Line Help for the applications Microsoft Access 97 and Microsoft Excel 97 stored in the files ACMAIN80.HLP and XLMAIN8.HLP). RAN 5–6. Claims 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Malloy (U.S. Pat. No. 5,905,985; issued May 18, 1999). RAN 6. Claims 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Malloy and Bogrett (U.S. Pat. No. 6,842,758 B1; issued Jan 11, 2005). RAN 6. Claims 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the Platinum References (Erik Thomsen, OLAP Solutions: Building Multidimensional Information Systems, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997; PLATINUM Technology announces availability of lnfoBeacon 3.1, an on- line analytical processing product; performance, functionality, scalability and open architecture of new release represents rule change in Enterprise OLAP market, Business Wire, June 3, 1996; InfoBeacon Delivers Complete OLAP Solution to CPI, Data Management Review, October 1997; PLATINUM InfoBeacon Administrator Guide, Version 4.0.3, Platinum technology, inc., August 1998). RAN 6–7. We affirm. Appeal 2015-004352 Reexamination Control 95/000,697 Patent 7,720,860 B1 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding arose from a request by MicroStrategy Inc. for an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,720,861 B1, entitled “Multimedia Inspection Database System (MIDAS) for Dynamic Run-Time Data Evaluation” (the ’861 patent). Patent Owner and Requester both note related appeals and related litigations. See PO App. Br. 3, 3PR Resp. Br. 4. The ’861 patent “relates to inspection information systems for evaluating structures that provide data query and update capabilities.” ’861 patent, col. 1, ll. 20–21. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method executed by a programmable apparatus, comprising: a. receiving with a computer a data retrieval request to form an OLAP cube from a graphical user interface (GUI) on a programmable user display device, b. in response to the retrieval request to form the OLAP cube, accessing with the computer a plurality of disparate digital databases and retrieving with the computer requested data from such databases, c. viewing the OLAP cube formed from the retrieved data using the GUI, wherein the retrieved data is accessed dynamically on demand directly from the disparate digital databases, d. accepting through the GUI a user update of specific data in the OLAP cube, e. accessing a database relevant to the specific data, and updating that database dynamically on demand with the specific data, and f. dynamically updating the OLAP CUBE data displayed on the GUI with the specific data. Appeal 2015-004352 Reexamination Control 95/000,697 Patent 7,720,860 B1 4 ANALYSIS THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1–4 BY MALLOY The Examiner finds Malloy discloses all limitations of claims 1–4. RAN 6 (incorporating Request 15–16 and Claim Chart Exhibit J by reference). Patent Owner contends “Malloy discloses no databases other than database(s) 118, and [] does not disclose that databases 118 may be ‘disparate.’” PO App. Br. 20. Patent Owner further contends “Malloy also teaches ‘a multi-dimensional database’ (300) that contains various values for items like time, product, and costs. [Malloy], 6:23–28, 51–54; Figure 3. However, [] Malloy fails to disclose how values for these items might be changed by a user.” PO App. Br. 20–21. Based on these positions, Patent Owner presents the following principal arguments: i. Under the correct construction, the recited disparate databases must be incompatible, and must exist concurrently in order to be accessed. See PO App. Br. 21-22; see also PO Reb. Br. 10–11. ii. Malloy’s databases 118 are not the disparate databases as recited. See PO App. Br. 22–24; see also PO Reb. Br. 11–12. In particular, Patent Owner cites to evidence of record, which states: At a given time, server 116 [in Malloy] may be, e.g., a DB2 server, an Oracle server, a Sybase server, etc. But whichever DBMS is chosen, server 116 nevertheless implements that DBMS consistently for all databases 118 [in Malloy]. The result is not a set of “disparate databases” as in the claims of the ’861 patent, but rather a set of homogeneous databases. PO App. Br. Evidence Appendix A, Khan Decl. ¶19. iii. “[I]nstalling different DBMSes at different times during the course of forming an OLAP cube is nowhere suggested within Malloy’s Appeal 2015-004352 Reexamination Control 95/000,697 Patent 7,720,860 B1 5 disclosure.” PO App. Br. 23. Further, an arrangement that installs different DBMSes at different times is inconsistent with correct claim construction, and technically unreasonable. See PO App. Br. 23–24; see also PO Reb. Br. 12. iv. “While Malloy makes general reference to ‘update operations’ that may be performed by DB2 server 116, see id. 5:59–64, Malloy does not explain how these update operations relate to either user-provided input or an OLAP cube.” PO App. Br. 24. In particular, Patent Owner cites to evidence of record, which states: Although Malloy describes navigating and selecting data within a data cube (e.g., 6:47–48; 7:12–14), Malloy fails to disclose that an individual data item within the cube can be modified by a user, or that such a modified data item can be updated within a source database. Malloy only mentions “updating” in the context of operations performed by database server 116. But such updates do not inherently require user interaction; for example, a database server in an OLAP system may perform aggregations or calculations on stored data and store the results without any involvement on the part of a user. PO App. Br. Evidence Appendix A, Khan Decl. ¶20; see also PO App. Br. 25–27, PO Reb. Br. 12–13. v. “Malloy fails to explain what ‘multi-user read and write access’ entails, and further fails to explain how the various database operations performed by DB2 server 116 relate to any user operations at all—much less user updates to data in an OLAP cube.” PO App. Br. 28; see also PO App. Br. Evidence Appendix A, Khan Decl. ¶20, PO Reb. Br. 13 (“Simply offering disembodied references to ‘update operations’ or ‘write access’ fails to demonstrate the detailed relationships among elements ‘arranged as in the claim,’ as Net MoneyIN requires for anticipation”). Appeal 2015-004352 Reexamination Control 95/000,697 Patent 7,720,860 B1 6 vi. Malloy does not disclose the recited dynamically updating the OLAP CUBE data displayed on the GUI with the specific data. See PO App. Br. 29; see also PO Reb. Br. 13. We have considered the arguments (PO App. Br. and PO Reb. Br.) and evidence (PO App. Br. Evidence Appendix) presented by Patent Owner, including the declaration by Latifur R. Khan, Ph.D., and we do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. Disparate Databases We agree with the Examiner and the Requester that Malloy’s databases 118 reasonably are described as the recited disparate databases of claim 1. RAN 6 (citing Request 15–16, Exhibit J); see Request Claim Chart Exhibit J, Page 2 (citing Malloy, col. 4, ll. 63–67, col. 5, ll. 53–64, col. 10, ll. 36–42); see also 3PR Resp. Br. 11–12. Malloy (col. 10, ll. 36–42) discloses: To access the multi-dimensional data in the relational database 118, a user interacts with the OLAP client program 106 executed by the OLAP client 100. This interaction results in a request (i.e., command) for a database operation being formed, which is transmitted to the OLAP agent 110 and/or OLAP engine 112 executed by the OLAP server 102 via the network interface programs 104 and 108. Malloy (col. 5, ll. 59–64) also discloses: “The DB2 server program 116 [which is executed by the OLAP server 102], in turn, performs various database operations, including search and retrieval operations, termed queries, insert operations, update operations, and delete operations, against one or more relational databases 118 stored on a remote or local data storage device.” Malloy (col. 4, ll. 63–67) discloses: “[T]he present invention can Appeal 2015-004352 Reexamination Control 95/000,697 Patent 7,720,860 B1 7 use DB2, Oracle, Informix, Sybase, or other RDBMS software, and can run on computers using IBM OS/2, Microsoft Windows NT, IBM-AIX, Hewlett-Packard HP-UX, Sun Solaris, and other operating systems.” Thus, Malloy discloses the recited steps in claim 1 of “in response to the retrieval request to form the OLAP cube” (Malloy’s request to access multi-dimensional data in databases 118 via user interaction with OLAP client program 106), “accessing with the computer a plurality of disparate digital databases” (Malloy’s databases 118, which may be DB2, Oracle, Informix, Sybase, or other RDBMS software) and “retrieving with the computer requested data from such databases” (Malloy’s access to the multi- dimensional data in the relational databases 118). As discussed above, Malloy discloses the recited disparate databases. We now provide additional explanation with regard to Patent Owner’s principal arguments relating to the disparate databases. Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (i), we find this argument without consequence because Malloy discloses disparate databases that are both incompatible and exist concurrently. Thus, under Patent Owner’s claim interpretation, Malloy describes the recited disparate databases as discussed above and below. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (ii) and (iii), Malloy supports the Examiner’s findings. Malloy’s disclosure (col. 4, ll. 63–67) of DB2, Oracle, Informix, Sybase, or other RDBMS software sufficiently discloses that Malloy’s system can include a set of incompatible databases. Further, Malloy’s disclosure (col. 10, ll. 36–42) of a request to access multi- dimensional data in databases 118 via user interaction with OLAP client Appeal 2015-004352 Reexamination Control 95/000,697 Patent 7,720,860 B1 8 program 106 discloses accessing the plurality of databases in Malloy’s system. Taking these two disclosures together, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that Malloy discloses accessing a plurality of incompatible databases. Further, the incompatible databases concurrently exist because Malloy discloses that the plurality of databases (i.e., one or more databases 118) are accessed when program 116 performs various database operations. Malloy (col. 5, ll. 53–64). Thus, Malloy discloses the recited accessing with the computer a plurality of disparate digital databases in response to the retrieval request to form the OLAP cube. Construing the claim to require concurrently existing databases does not require that the disparate databases be accessed simultaneously, only that they concurrently exist. Thus, even assuming Malloy only accesses homogenous databases simultaneously, a skilled artisan would have understood that Malloy nonetheless discloses accessing disparate digital databases in response to the retrieval request to form the OLAP cube. See Malloy, col. 4, ll. 63–67; col. 10, ll. 36–42.; see also ACP 22 (“Even though a single server may only implement and use a single type of DBMS software at a given time, the single server could ultimately support accessing with a client computer a plurality of disparate digital databases”). Writeback functionality We agree with the Examiner and the Requester that Malloy describes the recited clauses (d)–(f) of claim 1. See Request, Claim Chart Exhibit J, Pages 5–8 (citing Malloy, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 6, col. 2, ll. 20–27, col. 4, ll. 4–20, 39–45, col. 5, ll. 53–64); see also 3PR Resp. Br. 12–13. Appeal 2015-004352 Reexamination Control 95/000,697 Patent 7,720,860 B1 9 Malloy (Figure 1) discloses OLAP client 100. Malloy (col. 5, ll. 59– 64) discloses: “The DB2 server program 116, in turn, performs various database operations, including search and retrieval operations, termed queries, insert operations, update operations, and delete operations, against one or more relational databases 118 stored on a remote or local data storage device.” Malloy (col. 4, ll. 12–20) discloses multi-user read and write access for OLAP. Thus, Malloy’s OLAP client 100 and write access for OLAP discloses the recited accepting through the GUI a user update of specific data in the OLAP cube. And, thus, Malloy’s server program performing the update operations against the one or more relational databases discloses the recited accessing a database relevant to the specific data, and updating that database dynamically on demand with the specific data. Finally, Malloy’s OLAP client 100 and write access for OLAP also discloses the recited dynamically updating the OLAP CUBE data displayed on the GUI with the specific data. As discussed above, Malloy discloses the recited writeback functionality. We now provide additional explanation with regard to Patent Owner’s principal arguments relating to the writeback functionality. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (iv)–(vi), Malloy supports the Examiner’s findings. See Malloy, Fig. 1 (depicting OLAP client 100 and OLAP client program 106); Malloy, col. 4, ll. 12–20 (describing user write access for OLAP); Malloy, col. 5, ll. 59–64 (describing update operations against the one or more relational databases). We also agree with and adopt as our own the further explanation provided by Requester: [B]ecause the various user interactions described by Malloy with regard to the OLAP system would be provided via the GUI Appeal 2015-004352 Reexamination Control 95/000,697 Patent 7,720,860 B1 10 of the OLAP client program 106, Malloy describes receiving a request to modify a portion of the displayed representation from the GUI, and directly updating one of the databases 118 consistent with the request to modify. Moreover, to enable the described “what-if’ing” and “updating” functionality the displayed OLAP cube (and thus one or more of the slices that comprise the OLAP cube) would need to be updated with the specific data. Resp. Br. 13; see also Malloy, col. 4, ll. 12–20, 40–45, col. 5, ll. 53–64. Thus, we agree with the Examiner and Requester that a skilled artisan would have understood that the database operations performed by DB2 server 116, and specifically the update operations to databases 118, are consistent with the user input via the GUI of the OLAP client program 106. Thus, Malloy’s (Figure 1) OLAP client 100 and OLAP client program 106 and Malloy’s (col. 4, ll. 12–20) user write access for OLAP discloses the recited accepting through the GUI a user update of specific data in the OLAP cube. And thus, Malloy’s server program performing the update operations against the one or more relational databases (col. 5, ll. 59– 64) discloses the recited “accessing a database relevant to the specific data, and updating that database dynamically on demand with the specific data” as recited in claim 1. Finally, we agree that in Malloy’s described operational OLAP “what- if’ing” and updating functionality, the displayed OLAP cube would be updated with the specific data; accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Malloy lacks any clarity with regard to updating the GUI display of the OLAP cube. See Malloy, col. 4, ll. 39–45 (describing write-access for enabling operational OLAP). Appeal 2015-004352 Reexamination Control 95/000,697 Patent 7,720,860 B1 11 We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Patent Owner does not separately argue claims 2–4 with particularity. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons. THE REMAINING REJECTIONS Because we have affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of all the claims, we decline to reach the merits of the remaining rejections over the prior art. See, e.g., In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching rejections based on obviousness when claims already rejected as anticipated). ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4 is affirmed. Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79. In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within the time provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983. AFFIRMED Appeal 2015-004352 Reexamination Control 95/000,697 Patent 7,720,860 B1 12 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel, P.C. P.O. Box 398 Austin, TX 78767-0398 Third Party Requester: Fish & Richardson, PC P.O. Box 1022 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022