Ex Parte Brobst

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 23, 2010

10109025 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN A. BROBST
____________

Appeal 2009-004550
Application 10/109,025
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: June 24, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4-8, 10, 11, and 13-17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

Appeal 2009-004550
Application 10/109,025

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant invented a data warehousing system enabling various areas
of an enterprise to view data at varying levels of data freshness. See
generally Abstract; Spec. 2-3. Claim 4 is illustrative:
4. A method for use in allowing the user of a database to view data
representing events in the life of a business enterprise, where the data is
stored in one or more database tables that include a first set of records
indicating when the events occurred and a second set of records indicating
when the data was made available for retrieval from the database, the
method comprising:

receiving a request for data representing one or more events that
occurred at or before a selected point-in-time, where the request occurs at
some point after the selected point-in-time has passed;

accessing the information stored in the first and second sets of records
to identify when the events occurred and when data corresponding to the
events was made available for retrieval; selecting from the table data for
which:

(a) the first set of records indicates that a corresponding one of the
events occurred at or before the selected point-in-time; and

(b) the second set of records indicates that the data was made
available for retrieval at or before the selected point-in-time; and

delivering the selected data to for presentation to the user.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ayers US 2006/0178905 A1 Aug. 10, 2006
(eff. filed Aug. 31, 2001)

Appeal 2009-004550
Application 10/109,025

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 4-8, 10, 11, and 13-171 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Ayers. Ans. 3-4.2

CONTENTIONS
Regarding independent claim 4, the Examiner finds that Ayers
discloses all claimed subject matter including receiving data requests
occurring after a selected point-in-time (i.e., the “approval date” of
“5/10/01” in Ayers’ Figure 9). Ans. 3-5. Appellant argues that since Ayers
(1) provides the requested data, and then (2) approves that data, the request
cannot occur after the approval date (i.e., the “selected point-in-time”). App.
Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4-5.
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 by finding
that Ayers receives a request for data representing one or more events that
occurred at or before a selected point-in-time, where the request occurs after
the selected point-in-time?

1 Although claim 17 depends from claim 18 (which is not on appeal), we
nonetheless presume for purposes of appeal that claim 17 was intended to
depend from claim 16.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed December
27, 2007; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 16, 2008; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed August 21, 2008.
Appeal 2009-004550
Application 10/109,025

4
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Ayers’ system manages product sales data for external reports.
Specifically, the “Data Load” tab of the user interface of Figure 2 loads the
screen shown in Figure 9 enabling the user to review results of data extracts
from various peripheral systems. Ayers, Title; Abstract; ¶¶ 0086, 0105;
Figs. 2, 9.
2. The “Run Date” is the date on which an extract occurred. Upon
selecting a year and quarter in Figure 9, the system populates a pull-down
list with associated run dates. When a run date is selected, the system
populates the screen. Ayers, ¶ 0106; Fig. 9.
3. Before the user reviews and approves the extract, the following
items are blank: (1) the “Approved” flag; (2) the approval date; and (3) the
user field. Ayers, ¶ 0106; Fig. 9.
4. The user must approve a data extract before the new data will be
eligible for session calculations. To approve an extract, the user clicks an
“Approve” button. After successfully completing various aspects of the
approval process, the system then (1) changes the status of the approval flag,
and (2) records the time at which approval occurred. Ayers, ¶ 0111; Fig. 9.
5. An “Excel” button allows the user to export the information in the
table of Figure 9 to a spreadsheet. Ayers, ¶ 0112; Fig. 9.

ANALYSIS
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 4
since Ayers does not necessarily receive a request for data representing
events occurring at or before a selected point-in-time, where the request
occurs after the selected point-in-time as claimed.
Appeal 2009-004550
Application 10/109,025

5
The Examiner unambiguously interprets this “selected point-in-time”
as the approval date in Ayers’ Figure 9 (i.e., 5/10/01). Ans. 3. Although the
functionality of Ayers’ Figure 9 enables receiving requests for events
occurring before this “selected point-in-time” (i.e., events corresponding to
the selected year and quarter and associated run date) (FF 1-2), the requests
for these events occur before—not after—Ayers’ approval date. That is the
very essence of Ayers’ approval process: the requests for data must occur
before approving that data—otherwise there would be no data to approve.
That the approval date is initially blank and appears only after the user
reviews the data extract and clicks the “Approve” button (FF 3-4) only
bolsters this conclusion.
To the extent that the Examiner’s position is premised on the notion
that requests can somehow be received after this selected point-in-time
(approval date) (Ans. 5), such a position actually runs counter to Ayers’
approval process which initially displays a blank approval date before data is
retrieved for review. FF 3. In any event, even if we were to accept the
Examiner’s position in this regard, the Examiner has simply failed to show
that these requests would necessarily be received after the approval date—a
crucial requirement for inherent anticipation.3
To be sure, Ayers indicates that approving a data extract in this
manner is a prerequisite for the new data’s eligibility for “session
calculations” (FF 4)—a passage suggesting that some type of analysis of the

3 “Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citations omitted).

Appeal 2009-004550
Application 10/109,025

6
data can occur after its approval. But the Examiner has not explained how
or why these “session calculations” would necessarily occur, let alone
involve requests for the data. Nor will we engage in such an inquiry here in
the first instance on appeal. We reach a similar conclusion regarding Ayers’
ability to export data to a spreadsheet (FF 5)—a feature that has not been
shown on this record to involve requests that would necessarily occur after
the approval date.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 4; (2) independent claims 10 and 13 which recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 5-8, 11, and 14-17 for
similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4-8, 10, 11, and 13-17 under
§ 102.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4-8, 10, 11, and 13-17 is
reversed.

REVERSED

pgc

JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA CORPORATION
2835 MIAMI VILLAGE DRIVE
MIAMISBURG, OH 45342