Ex Parte Avery

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

11027441 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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.
11/027,441 12/29/2004 Dirk J. Avery 50277-2657 7359
42425 7590 10/31/2012
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
BULLOCK, JOSHUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2012 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
____________

Ex parte DIRK J. AVERY
____________

Appeal 2010-008010
Application 11/027,441
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before, STEPHEN C. SIU, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1. This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.§ 41.50(b)
(2007). 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.”
Appeal 2010-008010
Application 11/027,441

2

SUMMARY

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-14, 16, 17, and 19-26. Claims 2, 5, 15, and 18 were
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse and add a
new ground of rejection for claims 14, 16, 17, and 19-26.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention concerns accessing a Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP) directory using database access mechanisms, so that the database
view presents data that is consistent with data in the LDAP directory at the time the
database view is queried. (Spec. ¶ [0017]).
Claim 1 is illustrative.
1. A method of accessing information, the method comprising:
creating, on a database server, a database view that corresponds to data from
an LDAP directory;
assigning a label to the database view; and
allowing an application to interact with the LDAP directory through the
database view as though the LDAP directory were a database table;
wherein said database view:
is based upon a first Structured Query Language (SQL) query that
accesses data from said LDAP directory;
is created using a CREATE VIEW statement;
wherein the step of allowing an application to interact with the LDAP
directory through the database view as if the LDAP directory were a database table
comprises:
Appeal 2010-008010
Application 11/027,441

3

receiving, from said application, a second SQL query designed to
access a database table of a particular name wherein said particular name is
identical to the label assigned to the database view; and
executing said second query relative to the database view;
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-21, 23-24, and 26 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by US 6,985,905 B2 (“Prompt”).
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Prompt in view of US 5,717,924 (“Kawai”).
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Prompt and Kawai, and further in view of US 7,152,073 B2
(“Gudbjartsson”).

CONTENTIONS
The positions of the Examiner and Appellant are detailed in the appeal brief
filed on December 22, 2009, the Examiner’s Answer mailed on March 4, 2010, and
the reply brief filed on April 30, 2010. The Examiner finds that Prompt teaches a
method of accessing information which includes accessing data from a database as
a database view from an LDAP directory. (Ans. 4). Citing column 5, lines 57-67,
and column 6, lines 3-17, the Examiner finds that Prompt teaches interaction with
an LDAP directory through a database view. (Ans. 4). Citing column 36, lines 1-
15, Figure 7B, and SQL queries in Figure 13, the Examiner finds that Prompt
teaches using SQL queries to access a database. (Ans. 5). The Examiner also finds
Appeal 2010-008010
Application 11/027,441

4

that Prompt teaches allowing an application to interact with the LDAP directory
through the database as though the LDAP directory were a database table. (Ans. 5).
Appellant contends that claim 1 is directed to accessing the view on a
database as though the view were a table in the database being accessed, while
Prompt teaches directly accessing the LDAP abstraction layer in order to get to
data in the database. (App. Br. 6). Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that
Prompt teaches interaction with an LDAP directory through a database view,
contending that Figure 13 of Prompt does not illustrate queries utilized to access a
database view, but instead is directed to creating a Directory View Definition.
(Reply Br. 4-5).
Appellant also argues that Prompt does not disclose the limitations in claim
1 explicitly requiring that the view created by the database server correspond to
data in the LDAP directory, and that an SQL query designed to access a table be
received and executed relative to the view which corresponds to that data. (App.
Br. 9). Appellant concludes that the point of Prompt is to use the LDAP directory
to get data from the database, not the other way around. (Reply Br. 5).

ANALYSIS
The rejection of Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-21, 23-24, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)

Appellant argues patentability of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as a group. (App. Br. 4-9). Therefore, we address the claims together and
treat claim 1 as illustrative.
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s assertion that Prompt shows (i) creating
on a database server a database view that corresponds to data from an LDAP
directory and (ii) receiving from the application a second SQL query designed to
Appeal 2010-008010
Application 11/027,441

5

access a database table of a particular name wherein the particular name is
identical to the label assigned to the database view; and executing the second query
relative to the database view. (App. Br. 8-9).
Prompt teaches that directories and relational databases are not
interchangeable. (Col. 13, ll. 37-38). Prompt describes a relational view as one
obtained by selecting one or more tables stored in a database and combining the
tables according to a valid sequence of operations. (Col. 13, ll. 40-57). Prompt
describes directories as providing a data abstraction mechanism by acting as a
central point for data management. (Col. 14, ll. 17-18). Prompt further teaches
that directories are used primarily for searching (used for direct access to data
when attributes are known) and browsing (used when broad criteria of
relationships are known, resulting in indirectly accessing data). (Col. 14, ll. 33-
58).
Prompt also teaches that LDAP is an object oriented protocol (col. 3, ll. 41-
42) that is well suited for use with directories, as compared to databases,
particularly for enabling look-up over a network. (Col. 4, ll. 50-52). Prompt
discloses a system for locating, extracting, and transforming data from unrelated
relational network data sources into an integrated format that may be universally
addressed and viewed over network systems according to a hierarchical
representation. (Col. 1, ll. 29-33). As disclosed in Prompt, a virtual directory
server (VDS) enables access to relevant views of relational computing systems
through an Information Resource Locator (IRL), which is an LDAP URL used as
an address locator for any type of data record, enabling the hierarchical computing
system to index and address data. (Col. 5, ll. 57-67). The VDS establishes a link
between different types of records and aggregates their data without changing the
view. (See Col. 15, l. 60- col. 16, l. 25). Prompt teaches that the VDS eliminates
Appeal 2010-008010
Application 11/027,441

6

data replication and synchronization issues by not requiring data to be held in the
directory itself, the VDS handles schema transformation automatically, and
requests from LDAP clients return live data from the authoritative source. (Col.
16, ll. 50-55). The VDS maps database views into a directory structure that is in
compliance with LDAP, thereby resulting in LDAP directory structures. (Col. 25,
ll. 50-53).
Appellant concedes that Figure 7B of Prompt shows using SQL queries to
access a database, but disputes the Examiner’s finding that Figure 13 of Prompt
illustrates queries utilized to access a database view. (Reply Br. 4). The Examiner’s
reliance on Figure 13 to support a finding that Prompt utilizes SQL inquiries to
access a database view (Ans. 10) is inconsistent with the disclosure in Prompt.
Prompt identifies Figure 13 as a flowchart of a preferred method of creating a
directory view from extracted schema. (Col. 8, ll. 7-9). Figure 13 shows the View
Designer generating information to build an SQL query (Step 1326), but does not
show allowing an application to access an LDAP directory through a database
view, as claimed. In the example in Figure 13, a new directory view is created, not
a database view. (Col. 27, ll. 58-60). Thus, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not shown that Prompt discloses creating on a database server a
database view that corresponds to data from an LDAP directory.
Appellant notes that the application in Prompt attempts to access
information via an LDAP interface, and the data to be accessed is stored in a
database, while the application in claim 1 accesses information via a Database
Management System, and the data to be accessed is stored in an LDAP directory.
(App. Br. 6). To that end, claim 1 recites allowing an application to interact with
an LDAP directory through the database view, as though the LDAP directory were
a table, upon receiving a second SQL query from the application.
Appeal 2010-008010
Application 11/027,441

7

In contrast, Prompt teaches receiving a request in the form of an IRL, i.e.,
an LDAP URL, which a query generator formulates into a format where a
relational computing system can be queried for the requested information. (Col.
19, ll. 20-28; see also Fig. 7B showing an LDAP to SQL query translation 706 to
access relational database 708). Requests received from clients having
applications operating in compliance with LDAP are processed by the VDS and
transmitted to the target database. (Col. 25, ll. 55-60).
Thus, we agree with the Appellant that the point of Prompt is to use the
LDAP directory to get access to the database, not the other way around, as recited
in claim 1 (Reply Br. 5). The Examiner has not demonstrated that Prompt
discloses receiving from an application a second SQL query designed to access a
database table of a particular name wherein that particular name is identical to the
label assigned to the database view and executing the second query relative to the
database view, as recited in claim 1.
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11,
13-14, 16-17, 19-21, 23-24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

The Rejection of Claims 9 and 22 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Since the underlying elements of this rejection are not found in Prompt and
the Examiner does not rely on Kawai as teaching the disputed claim features, we
reverse the rejection of claims 9 and 22, which depend from claim 1, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

The Rejection of Claims 12 and 25 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Since the underlying elements of this rejection are not found in Prompt and
the Examiner does not rely on Gudbjartsson as teaching the disputed claim
Appeal 2010-008010
Application 11/027,441

8

features, we reverse the rejection of claims 12 and 25, which depend from claim 1,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

NEW GROUND OF REJECTION – CLAIMS 14, 16, and 19-26
Claims 14, 16, 17, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (d)
(previously 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 4) which states :

(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a
claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth
and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in
dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of
the claim to which it refers.

Each of claims 14, 16, 17, and 19-26 recites a computer readable medium
and limits the computer readable medium to a volatile or non-volatile medium
which stores instructions, that when executed by a processor carry out the steps of
a method recited in a different claim, resulting in each of claims 14, 16, 17, and 19-
26 being dependent on the referenced method claim. However, none of the claims
14, 16, 17, and 19-26 further limits the “subject matter claimed,” i.e., the method
recited in the referenced claim from which it depends, as required by 35 U.S.C.
112 (d). Therefore, we reject claims 14, 16, 17, and 19-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§122(d).

Appeal 2010-008010
Application 11/027,441

9

ORDER

The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-21, 23-24, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Prompt is reversed.
The rejection of claims 9 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Prompt in view of Kawai is reversed.
The rejection of claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Prompt and Kawai, and further in view Gudbjartsson is reversed.
Claims 14, 16, 17, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(d)
(previously 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 4). Appellant is directed to 37 CFR § 41.50(b).

REVERSED
37 CFR § 41.50(b)
Ack