Ex Parte Ali et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 14, 201311133660 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SYED M. ALI, YURY KAMEN, DEEPAK ALUR, JOHN P. CRUPI, and DANIEL B. MALKS ____________________ Appeal 2010-008629 Application 11/133,660 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN G. NEW, and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008629 Application 11/133,660 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claims Exemplary claims 1 and 5 under appeal read as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method for analyzing a target system, comprising: [(i)] obtaining a plurality of characteristics from the target system using a characteristics extractor, wherein the plurality of characteristics is defined in a characteristics model and each of the plurality of characteristics is associated with one of a plurality of artifacts defined in the characteristics model; [(ii)] storing each of the plurality of characteristics in a characteristics store; [(iii)] receiving a first query at a query engine, wherein the first query is composed using a pattern query language, and wherein the pattern query language is used to specify a first pattern corresponding to a relationship between at least two of the plurality of artifacts; [(iv)] translating, by the query engine, the first query to a second query composed using Structured Query Language (SQL); [(v)] issuing the second query to query the characteristics store; [(vi)] obtaining query results for the second query; and [(vii)] analyzing the query results to determine the presence of the first pattern in the target system, wherein the target system is a computer comprising hardware and software configured to execute on the hardware. Appeal 2010-008629 Application 11/133,660 3 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first query comprises a plurality of simple queries, a plurality of compound queries and at least one nested query, wherein each of the plurality of compound queries is used to determine the presence of a relationship between results of at least two of the plurality of simple queries, and wherein the at least one nested query is used to determine the presence of a relationship between results of at least two of the plurality of compound queries. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 8, 9, 13-16, 20, 21, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Assa (US 2004/0059812 Al). 1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 10-12, 17, 18, 22-24, 28, and 29 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Assa and Bowman (The Practical SQL Handbook: Using SQL Variants, Fourth Edition). 2 Appellants’ Contention 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because as to step (iv), “Assa states that the ‘Structured Query’ is merely similar to SQL, it follows logically that the 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-4, 8, 9, 13-16, 20, 21, and 25-27. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 2 Although claim 24 is not listed in either the Examiner’s or Appellants’ statements of the rejection, its rejection is discussed within the body of the Final Rejection. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 6, 10-12, 17, 18, 22-24, 28, and 29. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2010-008629 Application 11/133,660 4 ‘Structured Query’ cannot itself be an SQL query. See Assa, paragraph [0233].” (App. Br. 11-12) (emphasis omitted). 2. Further, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because: Assa is silent with regard to translating the “TQL node” to “Structured Query” (i.e., requirement (iv) listed above). Rather, Assa merely states that a “TQL node … enables a manager to create a Structured Query.” See Assa, paragraph [0233]. (App. Br. 12). 3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), because “claim 1 explicitly requires determining the presence of a particular pattern within a single computer (i.e., the target system).” (App. Br. 13). 4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because “Bowman also fails to disclose requirements (iv) and (vii) of claim 1.” (App. Br. 15). 5. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because: [O]ne of skill in the art will appreciate that the cited paragraph [Assa [0234]] fails to disclose a compound query as defined in the Specification (i.e., a query which filters the results of multiple simple queries). Rather, the cited paragraph merely lists a single simple query, namely a single SELECT query which includes three WHERE query conditions. (App. Br. 17). Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated because Assa fails to describe the argued limitations? Appeal 2010-008629 Application 11/133,660 5 Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 5 as being obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest the argued limitations? ANALYSIS As to the Appellants’ above contention 2, we disagree. Although Appellants now argue that the prior art fails to show translating from a pattern query language to a structured query such as SQL, Appellants specification states: Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the query engine (110) may include functionality to translate PQL queries (i.e., queries written in PQL) into queries written in a query language understood by the characteristics store (106) (e.g., SQL). Thus, a query written in PQL may be translated into an SQL query prior to being issued to the characteristics store (106). In this manner, the user only needs to understand the artifacts and/or characteristics that the user wishes to search for and how to express the particular search using PQL. The user does not need to be concerned with how the PQL query is handled by the characteristics store (106). (Spec. [0036])(emphasis added). Given that this alone was sufficient disclosure for Appellants to amend the claims to add “translating” (we find no other description of the translating step), we deem it to also be an admission by Appellants of the high level of skill in the art. Against the backdrop of this high level of skill in the art, Assa at claim 1, last line, states “using a topology pattern query created by a user” and paragraph [0233] cited by the Examiner states “TQL Node … enables the manager to create a Structured Query very similar to the Structured Query Language (SQL).” Taking the Assa reference as a whole, we agree with the Examiner that an artisan would understand Assa [0233] to be describing translation by “the Appeal 2010-008629 Application 11/133,660 6 manager” of the “topology pattern query created by a user” into “a structured query.” As to the Appellants’ above contention 3, we disagree. Claim 1 does not explicitly require “within a single computer” as argued. Nor does Appellants’ Specification require that the actual claim language of “a target system” be construed as such a single computer. Although Appellants’ Specification sets forth embodiments within a single computer, Appellants’ Specification also states: For example, as shown in FIG. 7, a networked computer system (200) includes a processor (202), associated memory (204), a storage device (206), and numerous other elements and functionalities typical of today’s computers (not shown). (Spec. [0061]) (emphasis added). Based on the level of skill in the art, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “target system” includes elements typical of today’s computers such as Assa’s networked/distributed computer that itself spans across the network. As to the Appellants’ above contention 5, the Examiner has agreed with Appellants that the query of paragraph [0234] is a simple query. The Examiner instead points to Fig. 14 and Fig. 15 of Assa as teaching a compound query. (Ans. 19). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding. Therefore, we deem this issue to be moot. As to the Appellants’ above contention 1, we agree with the Appellants. The Examiner’s reasoning of the Final Rejection and Answer are not sufficient to show that Assa describes translating to “SQL” as required by claim 1. However, we deem this reasoning of the Examiner to be more than sufficient to show that translating to “SQL” would have been Appeal 2010-008629 Application 11/133,660 7 obvious to an artisan. We designate our analysis in combination with the Examiner’s analysis to be a new ground of rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Assa. As to the Appellants’ above contention 4, we deem it moot in light of the above discussion of Appellants’ contention 1. We also reject claims 2-4, 8, 9, 13-16, 20, 21, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Assa for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of claims 2-4, 8, 9, 13-16, 20, 21, and 25-27. We also reject claims 5, 6, 10-12, 17, 18, 22-24, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Assa and Bowman for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of claims 2-4, 8, 9, 13-16, 20, 21, and 25-27. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . Appeal 2010-008629 Application 11/133,660 8 CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 8, 9, 13-16, 20, 21, and 25-27 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5, 6, 10-12, 17, 18, 22-24, 28, and 29 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (3) We enter a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-29. (4) Claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-29 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-29 are reversed. REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation