Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2012

09967553 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LARRY BROWN, JAMES C. KLEEWEIN, RONG QU,
BERTHOLD REINWALD, PETER M. SCHWARZ,
and CHARLES DANIEL WOLFSON
____________

Appeal 2011-005579
Application 09/967,553
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-005579
Application 09/967,553

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-10 and 81-127, which are all the claims remaining in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Representative Claim
1. A computer implemented method for enabling invocation of an
external service at a service provider server from a database in a database
computer system, comprising:

accessing from over a network a description of the external service
published by the service provider external to the database, wherein the
database manages data and includes a database engine to perform queries;

generating a user defined function from the accessed description of
the external service, wherein the user defined function is included in
database language statements executed by the database to invoke the
external service and resides on the database;

invoking, by the database, the user defined function by executing the
database language statements including the user defined function within the
database to invoke the external service and perform a query with respect to
the external service; and

receiving, at the database, data from the external service in response
to invoking and interacting with the external service.

Prior Art
Preisig US 2002/0184219 A1 Dec. 5, 2002
(filed May 31, 2001)
Murto US 2004/0213409 A1 Oct. 28, 2004
(filed May 15, 2001)

Appeal 2011-005579
Application 09/967,553

3
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-10 and 81-127 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Murto.
Claims 1-10 and 81-84 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Preisig.

ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 1-10 and 81-127 over Murto
Claim 1 recites “invoking, by the database, the user defined function
by executing the database language statements including the user defined
function within the database to invoke the external service and perform a
query with respect to the external service.” Appellants contend that Murto
discusses how a wireless device searches a UDDI registry to obtain
information on businesses and services, but does not disclose database
language statements executed by the database to invoke the external service
and perform a query with respect to the external service. App. Br. 12-15;
Reply Br. 1-4.
We agree with Appellants. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Murto. Each of independent
claims 90 and 109 contains a limitation similar to that of claim 1 for which
the rejection fails. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-10
and 81-127 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Murto.

Section 102 rejection of claims 1-10 and 81-84 over Preisig
Appellants contend that Preisig discusses how a client, using an HTTP
request, invokes an SQL statement to execute against a database and return
Appeal 2011-005579
Application 09/967,553

4
results back to a client, but does not describe invoking, by the database, the
user defined function by executing the database language statements
including the user defined function within the database to invoke the
external service that does not reside on the database. App. Br. 19-21; Reply
Br. 7-9.
We agree with Appellants. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
and dependent claims 2-10 and 81-84 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Preisig.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-10 and 81-127 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Murto is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-10 and 81-84 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Preisig is reversed.

REVERSED

babc