Ex Parte Bostick et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 16, 2012

11427930 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES E. BOSTICK, RANDOLPH M. FORLENZA, JOHN P.
KAEMMERER, and RAGHURAMAN KALYANARAMAN
____________

Appeal 2009-015087
Application 11/427,930
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and DAVID M. KOHUT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-015087
Application 11/427,930

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claim 18 which constitutes the sole claim on appeal. Claims 1-17 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to the replication or “propagation” of
databases using software tools to assist a database administrator (Spec. ¶¶
[0001] and [0003]). Relationships between tables are established using a
primary key and a foreign key (Spec. ¶ [0002]). The primary key uniquely
identifies a record in a table, and a foreign key establishes a relationship
with a primary key in another table (id.). When replicating database tables,
the integrity of the table relationship depends on the foreign key properly
referencing the primary key (id.). Appellants disclose and claim a cyclic
foreign key relationship, where tables are automatically propagated
containing cyclic references, without permanently removing any foreign
keys (Spec. ¶ [0010]; claim 18). Sole claim 18, with emphasis added to
disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:
18. A computer implemented process for propagating a plurality of
database tables with cyclic foreign keys without permanently
removing the cyclic foreign keys, the computer implemented process
comprising:
identifying a first source database table and a second source
database table with a cyclic foreign key relationship by iterating
through a plurality of records listed in a cyclic member table, that lists
the plurality of database tables with cyclic foreign keys;
Appeal 2009-015087
Application 11/427,930

3
creating a first target database table for said first source
database table to propagate;
copying said first source database table to said first target
database table, wherein all cyclic foreign keys referencing said second
source database table are replaced with "NULL";
copying said second source database table to a second target
database table;
iterating through the plurality of records of said cyclic member
table in reverse order; and
updating said first target database table with the cyclic foreign
keys referencing the second source database table from the first source
database table, wherein the plurality of database tables with cyclic
foreign keys are propagated without permanently removing the cyclic
foreign keys and without a violation error being thrown.
The Rejection
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ramanathan (US 7,346,627 B2), Wang (US 7,383,273 B2), and Dillon
(US 2004/0220956 A1). Ans. 3-6.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ramanathan, Wang, and
Dillon for numerous reasons, including:
(1) Ramanathan fails to teach a cyclic foreign key relationship (App.
Br. 12-13);
(2) Wang fails to explicitly copy tables using cyclic foreign key
references and instead uses a one-to-many relationship (App. Br. 16-17;
Reply Br. 4-5);
Appeal 2009-015087
Application 11/427,930

4
(3) Dillon fails to disclose cyclic foreign key references or
relationships (App. Br. 20-21); and
(4) none of the cited prior art discloses cyclic foreign keys (Reply Br.
2-5).

ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the briefs, the dispositive issue1 on
Appeal is as follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding claim 18 unpatentable as obvious over
the combination of Ramanathan, Wang, and Dillon because Ramanathan,
Wang, or Dillon, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or
suggest “cyclic foreign keys” or a “cyclic foreign key relationship,” as set
forth in claim 18?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has
erred. We agree with Appellants’ above contentions regarding claim 18, and
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
The Examiner finds that Ramanathan does not specifically teach
cyclic foreign keys, but Wang does (Ans. 5 citing Wang at col. 2, ll. 22-54;
col. 5, ll. 32-44; col. 6, ll. 55-67; col. 7, ll. 4-16; and col. 8, l. 60 to col. 9, l.

1 Appellants’ arguments present additional issues. The issue discussed
herein is dispositive of the appeal. Therefore, we do not reach the additional
issues.

Appeal 2009-015087
Application 11/427,930

5
17; Ans. 8 citing col. 5, ll. 32-44 and col. 6, ll. 55-67). The Examiner then
determines that Wang “show[s] two way mapping information for foreign
keys of data objects is incorporated into the prior art of Ramanathan to teach
propagating database tables with cyclic foreign keys” (Ans. 8). However, in
none of the portions of Wang cited by the Examiner does Wang disclose,
teach, or suggest the concept of cyclic foreign keys, or a cyclic foreign key
relationship. Wang merely discloses using foreign keys which are stored in
meta-data storage 104 (col. 5, ll. 31-34; col. 6, ll. 63-67; Abs.), but never
uses the term “cyclic” or discusses how the foreign keys are considered to be
“cyclic.”
The Examiner also determines that Dillon teaches that all foreign keys
referencing a second source database table are replaced with “NULL” (Ans.
5-6 citing Dillon at ¶¶ [0159], [0238], [0239], [0245], [0246], [0347],
[0348], [0349], and [0352]). As with Wang, discussed supra, none of the
portions of Dillon relied upon by the Examiner disclose, teach, or suggest
the concept of cyclic foreign keys, or a cyclic foreign key relationship.
Although Dillon does disclose foreign keys (¶ [0159]), foreign key
references (¶ [0239], [0245], and [0246]), and setting foreign key references
to NULL (¶ [0349] and [0352]), Dillon fails to even address the concept of
cyclic foreign keys or a cyclic foreign key relationship.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with Appellants that Ramanathan,
Wang, or Dillon, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or
suggest “cyclic foreign keys” or a “cyclic foreign key relationship,” as set
forth in claim 18. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 18
which recites “a cyclic foreign key relationship” for copying database tables
with “cyclic foreign keys,” and “wherein all cyclic foreign keys referencing
Appeal 2009-015087
Application 11/427,930

6
said second source database table [to be copied] are replaced with “‘NULL’”
(claim 18).
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is a review body,
rather than a place of initial examination. We have not reviewed claim 18 to
the extent necessary to determine whether this claim is unpatentable over
Ramanathan, Wang, Dillon, Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art regarding
member tables (see Spec. ¶ [0006]; see also ¶ [0006] and Fig. 2 of U.S.
Application 10/855,736, now abandoned), or any other prior art. We note
that Attaluri (any of US 6,339,777 B1; US 6,484,181 B2; and US
2002/0099688 A1) teaches cyclic foreign key relationships. In the event of
further prosecution we leave it to the Examiner to determine the patentability
of claim 18, in other words, to determine whether it would have also been
obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to combine the teachings of Ramanathan, Wang, Dillon, and/or
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art with Attaluri’s teaching of a cyclic foreign
key relationship (see the Abstracts of each of US 6,339,777 B1; US
6,484,181 B2; and US 2002/0099688 A1).

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude as follows:
(1) The Examiner erred in finding that claim 18 is obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ramanathan, Wang, and Dillon, as
applied by the Examiner.
(2) The Examiner has not established a prima facie case that claim 18
is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ramanathan,
Appeal 2009-015087
Application 11/427,930

7
Wang, and Dillon because none of the applied references teach or suggest a
cyclic foreign keys or a cyclic foreign key relationship.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 18 is reversed.

REVERSED

tj