Ex Parte 8082268 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2015

95000699 (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.
95/000,699 09/14/2012 8082268 6702-00300 7849
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 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2
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, 6–
12, and 14–16. PO App. Br. 3. Claims 5 and 13 are not subject to
reexamination. RAN 1 (BOX 1b). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

2
§§ 134 and 315, and we heard oral argument from the Requester in the
appeal on September 9, 2015.
Claims 1–4, 6–12, and 14–16 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, 6–12, and 14–16 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, 6–12, and 14–16 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, 6–12, and 14–16 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 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request by MicroStrategy Inc. for an
inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent 8,082,268 B2, titled “Multimedia
Inspection Database System (MIDAS) for Dynamic Run-Time Data
Evaluation” (the ’268 patent). Patent Owner and Requester both note related
appeals and related litigations. See PO App. Br. 3, 3PR Resp. Br. 4. The
’268 patent “relates to inspection information systems for evaluating
structures that provide data query and update capabilities.” ’268 patent, col.
1, ll. 20–22.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A data storage medium containing instructions
which, when executed, cause one or more computers to perform
a method comprising:
a. accessing a plurality of incompatible databases of
different types, wherein each of said plurality of incompatible
databases contains live source data and associated metadata;
b. retrieving at least a portion of the metadata from each
of said plurality of incompatible databases;
c. storing said portion of the metadata in a dimensional
format within a metadata repository;
d. creating a graphical user interface;
e. receiving a data retrieval request through said
graphical user interface in response to user input, and in
response to receiving the data retrieval request:
i. using said portion of the metadata to search the
live source data in said plurality of incompatible databases;
ii. retrieving responsive source data, wherein
responsive source data includes live source data that is
responsive to the data retrieval request; and
iii. dynamically assembling a multidimensional
view of at least a portion of said responsive source data without
first accessing a persistent repository of said responsive source
Appeal 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

4
data created after the data retrieval request is received, wherein
the multidimensional view includes at least three dimensions;
f. displaying a representation of at least a portion of said
responsive source data in the assembled multidimensional view
on said graphical user interface;
g. receiving a request to modify a portion of the
displayed assembled multidimensional view from said
graphical user interface in response to user input; and
h. in response to receiving the request to modify: i.
directly updating one or more of said plurality of incompatible
databases consistent with the request to modify; and ii. directly
updating the assembled multidimensional view consistent with
the request to modify.

ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1–4, 6–12, and 14–16 BY MALLOY
The Examiner finds Malloy discloses all limitations of claims 1–4, 6–
12, and 14–16. RAN 6 (incorporating Request 17–19 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 ‘incompatible,’ nor that they contain ‘live source data.’” PO
App. Br. 21. Patent Owner further contends “Malloy also teaches ‘a multi-
dimensional database’ that contains various values for various items.
[Malloy], 6:23–54; Figure 3. However, Malloy fails to disclose how values
for these items might be changed by a user.” PO App. Br. 21. Based on these
positions, Patent Owner presents the following principal arguments:
i. Under the correct construction, the recited incompatible
databases must exist concurrently in order to be accessed, and live source
data encompasses operational data in operational databases but not a data
Appeal 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

5
warehouse. See PO App. Br. 21-23; see also PO Reb. Br. 10–12. In
particular, Patent Owner cites to evidence of record, which states:
One of ordinary skill in the database arts would recognize that
operational data in operational databases could be “live source
data.” But such a person would not understand “live source
data” to refer to a data warehouse, which by definition contains
a copy of data extracted from some other source. In other
words, a data warehouse might contain an extracted copy of
“live source data,” but would not itself be considered “live
source data.”
PO App. Br. Evidence Appendix A, Khan Decl. ¶14.1.
ii. Malloy’s databases 118 are not the incompatible databases as
recited. See PO App. Br. 23–25; see also PO Reb. Br. 12–13. 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 “incompatible databases” as in the claims
of the ’268 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 a multidimensional data structure or OLAP cube is
nowhere suggested within Malloy’s disclosure.” PO App. Br. 24. Further, an
arrangement that installs different DBMSes at different times is inconsistent
with correct claim construction, and technically unreasonable. See PO App.
Br. 24–25; see also PO Reb. Br. 12–13.
iv. Malloy’s databases 118 do not contain the recited live source
data. See PO App. Br. 25–26; see also PO Reb. Br. 13. In particular, Patent
Owner cites to evidence of record, which states:
Appeal 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

6
[N]either Malloy’s relational databases 118 nor fact table 402
correspond to the claimed “live source data.” Nor does Malloy
disclose how relational databases 118 or fact table 402 are
updated to reflect an operational transaction. Rather, these
structures effectively store warehoused data rather than “live
source data.” Moreover, to the extent Malloy discloses
assembling an OLAP cube or a “multidimensional view,”
Malloy only does so using a previously stored “persistent
repository of ... responsive source data,” and therefore fails to
satisfy clause (e)(iii) of the independent claims of the ’268
patent.
PO App. Br. Evidence Appendix A, Khan Decl. ¶18.1.
v. “Although Malloy mentions general “update operations”
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 a displayed
multidimensional view.” PO App. Br. 26; see also PO App. Br. 26–27, PO
Reb. Br 14.
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.
vi. “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 a displayed assembled multidimensional view of data.” PO
Appeal 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

7
App. Br. 29; see also PO App. Br. 27–28 (arguing that the update of
Malloy’s outline does not constitute the claimed database update), PO App.
Br. Evidence Appendix A, Khan Decl. ¶20, PO Reb. Br. 14 (“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”).
vii. Malloy does not disclose the recited directly updating the
assembled multidimensional view consistent with the request to modify. See
PO App. Br. 30; see also PO Reb. Br. 14.
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.

Incompatible Databases
We agree with the Examiner and the Requester that Malloy’s
databases 118 reasonably are described as the recited incompatible databases
of claim 1. RAN 6 (citing Request 17–19, Exhibit J); see Request Claim
Chart Exhibit J, Pages 1–3 (citing Malloy, col. 4, ll. 40–45, 61–67, col. 5, ll.
53–64, col. 9, ll. 11–38, col. 10, ll. 36–42); see also 3PR Resp. Br. 12–13.
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
Appeal 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

8
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 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
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 instruction that when executed
performs the step of “accessing a plurality of incompatible databases of
different types” (e.g., Malloy’s databases 118, which may be DB2, Oracle,
Informix, Sybase, or other RDBMS software), “wherein each of said
plurality of incompatible databases contains live source data and associated
metadata” (e.g., Malloy’s request to access multi-dimensional data in
databases 118 via user interaction with OLAP client program 106, Malloy’s
access to the multi-dimensional data in the relational databases 118).
As discussed above, Malloy discloses the recited incompatible
databases. We now provide additional explanation with regard to Patent
Owner’s principal arguments relating to the incompatible databases.
Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (i), we find this argument
without consequence because Malloy discloses incompatible databases that
exist concurrently and contain live source data encompassing operational
data in operational databases. Thus, under Patent Owner’s claim
Appeal 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

9
interpretation, Malloy describes the recited incompatible databases as
discussed above and below in more detail.
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
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. Thus, Malloy discloses the recited
“accessing a plurality of incompatible databases of different types” in claim
1.
Construing the claim to require concurrently existing databases does
not require that the incompatible 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 a plurality of
incompatible databases of different types. See Malloy, col. 4, ll. 63–67; col.
10, ll. 36–42.; see also ACP 25–26 (“Even though a single server may only
implement and use a single type of DBMS software at a given time, the
Appeal 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

10
single server could ultimately support accessing with a client computer a
plurality of incompatible databases of different types”).
Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument (iv), Malloy’s databases 118
contain the recited live source data. The ’268 patent does not define “live
source data” but does distinguish between live data and warehoused data;
“[t]he fact that MIDaS [(multimedia inspection database system)] also
obviates the need for OLAP tools for the analysis of this data also means
that MIDaS can analyze this new data warehouse as a live view on live data
rather than the warehoused and potentially out of date data.” ’268 patent,
col. 9, ll. 57–60.
That said, we agree with the Examiner and the Requester that
Malloy’s databases 118 contain the recited live source data. We also agree
with and adopt as our own the further explanation provided by Requester:
Malloy describes user interactions with the OLAP client
program 106 resulting in requests for data from the databases
118. Ex. [E] [(Malloy)], col. 10, ll. 36–42. Data from within
databases 118 constitutes source data for OLAP analysis
performed through its OLAP client program 106. Moreover,
Malloy describes that server program 116 may perform update
operations against the source data accessed from within
relational databases 118. Ex. [E], col. 5, ll. 59–64.
Resp. Br. 12–13; see Malloy, col. 10, ll. 36–42 (describing user interaction
with OLAP client program 106 executed by the OLAP server 102 to access
databases 118 ); Malloy, col. 5, ll. 59–64 (describing insert, update, and
delete operations against the one or more relational databases 118). Thus, an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that Malloy discloses
operational transactions (insert, update, and delete) against databases 118,
Appeal 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

11
and data from within databases 118 is also used for OLAP analysis, and
therefore, the databases 118 contain the recited live source data.

Writeback functionality
We agree with the Examiner and the Requester that Malloy describes
the recited clauses (g) and (h) of claim 1. RAN 6 (citing Request, Exhibit J);
see Request, Claim Chart Exhibit J, Pages 11–14 (citing Malloy, col. 1, l.
66–col. 2, l. 6, col. 2, ll. 20–32, col. 4, ll. 4–20, 39–45, col. 5, ll. 53–64); see
also 3PR Resp. Br. 13–14.
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 “receiving a request to modify a portion of the displayed
assembled multidimensional view from said graphical user interface in
response to user input” of claim 1. And, thus, Malloy’s server program
performing the update operations against the one or more relational
databases discloses the recited “directly updating one or more of said
plurality of incompatible databases consistent with the request to modify” of
claim 1. Finally, Malloy’s OLAP client 100 and write access for OLAP also
Appeal 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

12
discloses the recited “directly updating the assembled multidimensional
view consistent with the request to modify” of claim 1.
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 (v)–(vii), 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
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. 14; 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 “receiving a request to modify a portion of the displayed
Appeal 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

13
assembled multidimensional view from said graphical user interface in
response to user input.” 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 “directly updating one or more of said plurality of
incompatible databases consistent with the request to modify.”
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, and 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).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Patent
Owner does not separately argue claims 2–4, 6–12, and 14–16 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).

Appeal 2015-004508
Reexamination Control 95/000,699
Patent 8,082,268 B2

14
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6–12, and 14–16 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

PATENT OWNER:

MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN TX 78767-0398

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022