Ex Parte Batra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2016

12868363 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/868,363 08/25/2010
89885 7590 02/12/2016
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vishal Singh Batra
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.
IN92010008lUS1
(790.079)
CONFIRMATION NO.
5742
EXAMINER
KERZHNER,ALEKSANDR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2016 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 VISHAL SINGH BATRA,
MANISH ANAND BRIDE, MUKESH KUMAR MOHANIA,
and SUMIT NEGI
Appeal2014-002838
Application 12/868,363
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-002838
Application 12/868,363
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to data warehouse data model adapters. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
assimilating scripts which generate reports, the scripts
relating to preexisting base tables; and
developing a schema for a new data warehouse with
merged data from the preexisting base tables and configured for
singly generating reports relating to the merged data, said
developing comprising:
finding base tables to form a fact table in the new data
warehouse;
finding base tables to form dimensions in the new data
warehouse; and
generating scripts for populating the new data warehouse.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rauer et al. us 6,161,103 Dec. 12, 2000
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
2
Appeal2014-002838
Application 12/868,363
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Rauer.
ANALYSIS
With respect to claims 1-23, Appellants argue the claims
together. (Br. 12). Consequently, we select claim 1 as the
representative claim and address Appellants' argument thereto.
Appellants contend:
Rauer, by contrast, relates generally to defining aggregates for
use in a datamart (Rauer, Abstract), but does not show an
arrangement for singly generating reports relating to merged data
from preexisting base tables. Accordingly, Rauer cannot be
construed as anticipating Claims 1, 12 and 13.
(Br. 12). Appellants rely upon paragraphs 50-59 of the original
Specification. The Specification states:
[0050] A target setup, in accordance with at least one
preferred embodiment of the present invention, is shown in FIG.
3. As shown, a single operational database 3 02 is in
communication with a single data warehouse 305, which alone
is capable of outputting reports 308a/b/c in accordance with three
applications. Thus, the need for three separate operational
databases and three separate summary data stores in the present
example is obviated
A tool in accordance with at least one embodiment of the
invention also has a capability to merge different data marts to
generate a single data warehouse.
The Examiner finds paragraphs 50 - 59 of the Specification does not provide
an express definition of "singly" and the Specification merely discusses
building of a basic data warehouse that is capable of outputting reports.
(Ans. 4). We agree with the Examiner. We find Appellants' general
3
Appeal2014-002838
Application 12/868,363
argument is not commensurate in scope with the express language recited in
independent claim 1. Therefore, Appellants' argument does not show error
in the Examiner's finding of anticipation of independent claim 1.
Moreover, the Examiner clarifies and expands upon the interpretation
of the Rauer reference in the Response to Arguments section of the
Examiner's Answer. We agree with the Examiner's findings and
conclusions and adopt them as our own. (Ans. 2---6).
We further note that Appellants' did not file a Reply Brief to respond
to the Examiner's further clarifications. As a result, Appellants' argument
does not show error in the Examiner's finding of anticipation of independent
claim 1 and independent claims 12 and 13 and dependent claims 2-11 and
14--23 not separately argued.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-23 based upon
anticipation.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims
1-23 is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4