Ex Parte BANSODE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2016

13250716 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/250,716 09/30/2011
26890 7590 05/19/2016
JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA US, INC.
10000 INNOVATION DRIVE
DAYTON, OH 45342
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
NEELESH V. BANSODE
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20610 9887
EXAMINER
CHEN,TEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
michelle. boldman @teradata.com
jam es.stover@teradata.com
td.uspto@outlook.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEELESH V. BANSODE, THOMAS K. RYAN, and
SHASHANK SHEKHAR
Appeal2014-006374
Application 13/250,716
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON,
and SCOTT B. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-16, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. 1 Claims 18-20 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. We
concur with Appellants' contention the Examiner erred in rejecting
1 Appellants identify Teradata Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006374
Application 13/250,716
independent claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Blake2 because Blake does not disclose the limitation "creating, via the
centralized framework, a rule, of the one or more business rules, that
contains an application programming interface (API) definition with
predefined input and output for exposing the database asset from the
RDBMS as the web service," as recited in claim 1 and recited similarly in
claim 9. 3 App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 3--4.
In finding that Blake discloses this limitation, the Examiner states the
following:
per an interface deployment tools in the MITRE system interface
layer (e.g., 202, 208, 210, Fig. 2) that coupled to the claimed
RDBMS asset (e.g., the components in 206, Fig. 2) to create (or
construct) a web based HTML query form interface (e.g., GUI
210, Fig. 2) for the rules specified in a stored XML file at S.:
0055-0058. For other details please also referred to the
components in Fig(s). 3-5 with associated texts and at S.: 0055-
0058, such as using a QueryBuilderobject (e.g., 252, 255, etc.
Fig. 6 & 299, Fig. 9) in those l\1ainControl package (e.g., 248,
Fig(s ). 6 -7 with associated texts) processing and tables 1-2].
Ans. 11 (see also Final Act. 6).
Appellants argue the limitation at issue is "wholly and completely
lacking from Blake." App. Br. 15. In particular, Appellants argue Blake
does not disclose a rule containing an API definition with "predefined input
and output for exposing the database asset ... as the web service," but
"merely presents an interface layer where a user can access the database as
2 US 2004/0103073 Al; published May 27, 2004, filed Nov. 21, 2002.
3 Although Appellants argue Blake does not disclose other limitations of
claim 1, we do not address them because we find this issue is dispositive.
2
Appeal2014-006374
Application 13/250,716
desired and can define various queries (see Blake [0041]-[0056])." Id; App.
Br. 15 (see Reply Br. 3).
On this record, we agree with Appellants the Examiner errs in finding
Blake anticipates claim 1. "A claim is anticipated only if each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union
Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We have reviewed the cited
portions of Blake relied on by the Examiner and agree with Appellants that
Blake does not disclose the limitation at issue. We agree with Appellants'
argument that, although the Examiner relies on Blake's interface deployment
tools in a system interface layer, "what is missing from such text [is] a
description of an API that is part of the rules that has predefined input and
output for exposing the database asset." Reply Br. 3. Thus, we conclude the
Examiner's findings do not persuasively show that Blake discloses the
disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1 and 9 and
dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16.
REVERSED
3