Ex Parte Adler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2015

12191711 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DUSTIN KURT ADLER

____________________

Appeal 2012-008844
Application 12/191,711
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before STANLEY M. WEINBERG, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 The Appeal Brief identifies XSEVO Systems, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed on January 9, 2012
(“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed May 14, 2012 (“Reply Br.”); and
Examiner’s Answer mailed March 21, 2012 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2012-008844
Application 12/191,711

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 20, and 33 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A system comprising:
a computing device;
a database stored on a computer readable medium and
including data records configured to store compiled code of a
computer program;
database management logic configured to access the
database;
code execution logic configured to retrieve the compiled
code from the data records by executing one or more queries on
the database management logic, and to execute the retrieved
code on operating system logic; and
command interpretation logic stored on a computer
readable medium and configured to generate the one or more
queries by interpreting a command.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
Bendel et al. US 2007/0038662 A1 Feb. 15, 2007
(hereinafter “Bendel”)
Omoigui US 2010/0070448 A1 Mar. 18, 2010
Appeal 2012-008844
Application 12/191,711

3

Examiner’s Rejection3
Claims 1–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bendel and Omoigui. Ans. 5–16.

ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own (Ans. 5–26), and we agree
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We
highlight the following for emphasis.
Rejection of Claims 1–19
The Examiner found Omoigui teaches the limitation of claim 1
reciting “command interpretation logic stored on a computer readable
medium and configured to generate the one or more queries by interpreting a
command.” Ans. 6, 17–18 (citing Omoigui ¶¶ 346, 358). The Examiner
concluded the combination of Bendel and Omoigui would have rendered
obvious the subject matter of claim 1. Ans. 5–6. Appellant argues the
Examiner has failed to articulate sufficiently a motivation to combination
Bendel and Omoigui. App. Br. 20–22; Reply Br. 5–7.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner’s rationale underlying the
proposed combination of Bendel and Omoigui suffices as an articulated
reason with some rational underpinning to establish a conclusion of

3 Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is insufficient under
35 U.S.C. § 132. App. Br. 17–19; Reply Br. 2–4. However, Appellant
acknowledges “the sufficiency of the rejection is not an appealable matter
but one addressable by petition.” App. Br. 16. Therefore, we do not address
this matter.

Appeal 2012-008844
Application 12/191,711

4

obviousness. Ans. 6, 17–18. For example, the Examiner explained that “it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include
Omoigui’s parser into Bendel’s database management system that manages
external routines as it would benefit Bendel’s system to be platform
independent allowing dynamic typing, dynamic scoping, and small
executable program size.” Ans. 18.
Appellant also argues the Examiner’s reliance on paragraph 18 of
Bendel is erroneous. App. Br. 19–20; Reply Br. 4–5. For the reasons stated
by the Examiner, we are not persuaded. Ans. 18. We further note Appellant
does not dispute Bendel teaches the limitations for which the Examiner has
relied on Bendel, as acknowledged by Appellant’s statement that “[t]he
difference between claim 1 and Bendel et al.” is the limitation for which the
Examiner relied upon Omoigui. App. Br. 15. Therefore, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in citing additional disclosure of Bendel
(paragraph 18) in support of the rejection.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant argues the rejections of dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8–11, and
13–19 lack a stated motivation and that the Examiner has not made a prima
facie case of obviousness. App. Br. 22–24; Reply Br. 8. The Examiner
explained that “the reason to combine the two references applied to the
independent claim also applies to its dependent claims.” Ans. 19. As such,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner failed to provide a rationale
underlying the proposed combination. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
these claims as well as dependent claims 5, 7, and 12, which are not
separately argued.
Appeal 2012-008844
Application 12/191,711

5

Rejection of Claims 20–32
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding paragraph 20 of
Bendel teaches receiving a command. App. Br. 25–27. Appellant further
argues “the phrase ‘receives a command/query’ is not expressly taught by
Bendel et al.” App. Br. 26. In response, the Examiner found that
“controlling access to the data” (Bendel ¶ 20) “includes ‘receiving a request
to access a data’ and granting or denying the request.” Ans. 20. We agree
with the Examiner’s finding because in order to grant or deny access to data,
a request for the data would have to have been received, and the Examiner
found that “the request is usually in the form of a database query.” Ans. 20.
Furthermore, Appellant later acknowledges that Bendel teaches receiving a
request: “Bendel et al. teaches that when a routine is requested by a client
11 the DBMS 200 receives ‘a request to call the external routine 150 (step
500)’ (paragraph [0039]) and ‘[t]ypically, the request includes the routine ID
152’ (paragraph [0040]).” App. Br. 29.
Appellant also argues the Examiner has failed to establish why it
would have been obvious to modify Bendel with the teachings of Omoigui
to include commands “comprising a command line or a universal resource
locator.” App. Br. 27–28; Reply Br. 9–10. We are not persuaded of
Examiner error. The Examiner’s rationale underlying the proposed
combination of Bendel and Omoigui suffices as an articulated reason with
some rational underpinning to establish a conclusion of obviousness. Ans.
11–12, 20–21. For example, the Examiner explained that “it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Omoigui’s parser
or interpreter, which generates interpreted command, into Bendel’s database
management system as it would benefit Bendel’s system to be platform
Appeal 2012-008844
Application 12/191,711

6

independent allowing dynamic typing, dynamic scoping, and small
executable program size.” Ans. 21.
Appellant also argues Bendel does not disclose a routine stored in
different records of the routine table. App. Br. 28–29; Reply Br. 10. We are
not persuaded because, with respect to the disclosure of Bendel, Appellant
later concedes, “it is true that the same routine may be stored in multiple
languages (elements 150a, 150b).” Reply Br. 11. Figure 3 of Bendel depicts
150a and 150b as separate entries in the routine table 160.
Appellant then argues Bendel teaches returning only one routine body
154 for each routine 150 requested and, as such, there would be no need for
a plurality of database queries. App. Br. 29–30 (citing Bendel ¶¶ 39–40).
However, Bendel teaches storing separate support programs that may be
needed by a routine in a support table 170 and correlating the support
programs to the routine ID 152. Bendel ¶ 29 (“The support table 170 stores
support programs 172 that may be needed by an external routine 150. The
support programs 172 are preferably stored as BLOBs and correlated to the
routine ID 152.”). Therefore, Appellant’s argument that Bendel teaches
returning only one routine body for each routine requested is not persuasive
in light of Bendel’s disclosure.
Appellant also argues Bendel does not teach or suggest retrieving
compiled code from different data records using a plurality of database
queries. App. Br. 30–31. Appellant argues that, although Bendel teaches a
routine may be stored in multiple languages, “any given call for a routine
will only require retrieval of the one version in the appropriate language”
such that it will not require retrieving code with “different parts of the
compiled code being stored in different members of the data records” as
Appeal 2012-008844
Application 12/191,711

7

claimed. Reply Br. 11. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
findings (Ans. 11–12, 22), and we further note this argument is not
persuasive in light of Bendel’s teachings, discussed above, of separate
support programs that may be needed by a routine correlated to the routine
ID 152. Bendel ¶ 29.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 20.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments with respect to dependent
claims 21–26, 28–30, and 32 (App. Br. 32–33; Reply Br. 12–14), but we are
not persuaded of Examiner error. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
these claims as well as dependent claims 27 and 31, which are not separately
argued.
Rejection of Claims 33 and 34
The Examiner found Omoigui teaches command line input and
concluded the combination of Bendel and Omoigui teaches “reading a first
object within a received command line or universal resource locator,” as
recited in claim 33. Ans. 15 (citing Omoigui ¶ 2779). Appellant argues the
“request” in Omoigui is an alternative to the command line, so the request
does not have a command line, as interpreted by Examiner. App. Br. 35
(citing Omoigui ¶ 2779). In response, the Examiner further explained that
paragraph 2779 of Omoigui
teaches user interaction to the system using WebUI interface to
modify or edit text on a command line on the Home Page.
“Standard request” is one form of request and “command line”
is another form of request. User inputs, edits, or modify text on
a command line means user request is in the form of “command
line.”
Appeal 2012-008844
Application 12/191,711

8

Ans. 24 (citing Omoigui ¶ 2779). We agree with the Examiner’s finding
that paragraph 2779 of Omoigui teaches a request within a command line.
For example, Omoigui teaches
the user can then go back to the edit control in the standard
request or the command line on the Home Page and/or click
Paste. The user can then change the text to AND, add
parentheses, change the wildcard to a specific ontology alias
qualifier (e.g., Cancer or MeSH), etc.
Omoigui ¶ 2779. As such, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Appellant also argues Bendel’s teaching of routine identifiers does not
teach the act of identifying as required by the method step. App. Br. 36;
Reply Br. 15. We are not persuaded, and we agree with the Examiner that
Bendel “teach[es] a routine identifier identifying the routines” and that it
would have been “obvious that the step of identifying the routine or the
object is performed by Bendel as it teaches routine identifier identifying the
routines.” Ans. 25 (citing Bendel ¶¶ 23–24).
Appellant further argues that Bendel and Omoigui do not provide a
motivation to combine the references and that the Examiner erred in not
“provid[ing] any line of reasoning regarding how a rationale that is not
expressly found in the cited reference was derived.” App. Br. 37. We are
not persuaded. The Examiner’s rationale underlying the proposed
combination of Bendel and Omoigui suffices as an articulated reason with
some rational underpinning to establish a conclusion of obviousness. Ans.
15, 26.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 33. With
respect to dependent claim 34, we are not persuaded of error (App. Br. 38),
and, therefore, we also sustain the rejection of claim 34.
Appeal 2012-008844
Application 12/191,711

9

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–34.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc