Ex Parte Catterall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

13600584 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/600,584 08/31/2012
133905 7590 08/12/2016
IBM CORPORATION- POUGHKEEPSIE (JVL)
C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN
6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT.
AUSTIN, TX 78739
Roy Antony Catterall
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.
AU920090015US2 5504
EXAMINER
BULLOCK, JOSHUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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):
leslie@vI-patents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROY A. CATTERALL, ALLAN T. CHANDLER,
ALAND. PLACE, MARK A. SHEWELL, and STEPHEN J. YATES
Appeal2015-000867
Application 13/600,584
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 (App. Br. 1). Claims 3-5, 8-
10, and 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (Final Act. 7). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to database management, and
more particularly to adaptive relational database access. Spec. i-fi-1 1-2.
Appeal2015-000867
Application 13/600,584
Claim l is illustrative:
1. A machine-implemented method comprising:
receiving an alteration request to mark a selected
column in a database table as an unused column;
updating a database control table indicating that the
selected column is unused;
retrieving a get value associated with the alteration
request;
storing the get value in the control table;
receiving a read request corresponding to the
selected column from a calling routing;
in response to receiving the read request, retrieving
the get value from the control table; and
returning the get value to the calling routine.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
R2. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeKimpe et al. (US 6,542,895 Bl, Apr.
1, 2003) and Seitz et al. (US 2010/0095270 Al, Apr. 15, 2010).
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1and11, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under§ 101 of claims 11-15
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the claimed term
computer readable storage medium can be considered a signal?
2
Appeal2015-000867
Application 13/600,584
Appellants contend that there "is nothing in Appellant's [sic]
Specification to indicate that a computer readable storage medium includes
transmission media or propagated signals" and the "only reasonable
interpretation of Appellant's [sic] Specification is that a computer readable
storage medium ... does not include signal-bearing media" (App. Br. 7).
The Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"'computer-readable storage medium' may include transmission media or
signals" and that Appellants' Specification is "only exemplary, and does not
preclude 'computer-readable storage medium' from including transmission
media or signals" (Ans. 2) (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because the
Specification describes only by example that a computer readable storage
medium may encompass (i.e., but not limited to) "random access memory of
the computer" or "another computer memory, for example, in a hard disk
drive, or in a removable memory such as an optical disk. .. or floppy disk"
(Spec. i-f 31 ). We find that describing a list of examples does not exclude
any particular embodiment from the list, and therefore does not exclude
transitory signals as being within the computer readable storage medium.
The USPTO provides the following guidance:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a
computer readable medium ... typically covers forms of non-
transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per
se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer
readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. ...
When the broadest reasonable of a claim covers a signal per se,
the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering
non-statutory subject matter.
David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media,
1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).
3
Appeal2015-000867
Application 13/600,584
In short, Appellants' non-exhaustive list of examples in the
Specification - without a corresponding claim amendment - falls short of
overcoming the Examiner's§ 101 rejection of claim 11. See id. (noting that
adding the term "non-transitory" to a claim drawn to a computer readable
medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments can
avoid a rejection under§ 101). See Ex parte Busche, No. 2009-007718,
2010 WL 5184640, at 5 (BP AI 2010) (non-precedential).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 11-15 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Rejection under§ 103 over DeKimpe and Seitz
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of DeKimpe and Seitz teach or suggest "receiving an alteration request to
mark a selected column in a database table as an unused column; updating a
database control table indicating that the selected column is unused," as
recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend "DeKimpe discusses deleting from an outline, and
not from a database table," that "deleting is not analogous to marking
something as unused, and deleting a member from an outline ... is not
analogous to receiving a request to mark a selected column in a database
table as unused," as required by claim 1, and that DeKimpe "discusses
modifying the database itself' and "actually teaches away from Appellant's
[sic] claimed invention" (App. Br. 8). Appellants further contend
DeKimpe's fact table does not teach a database table (App. Br. 9).
In response, the Examiner finds DeKimpe shows the column "Time"
as unused "in response to a deletion request," and that an "alteration request
4
Appeal2015-000867
Application 13/600,584
given the broadest reasonable interpretation is any request which modifies or
changes the state of an element" which includes a deletion "because deletion
is a modification or change to the 'Time' element" (Ans. 3). The Examiner
further finds "that a database table is simply a collection of related data held
in a structured format within a database" and that DeKimpe clearly
illustrates tables encompassing related data in a structured format (Ans. 3-
4). We agree with the Examiner.
For example DeKimpe discloses"[ w ]hen the outline is modified, the
relational database 118 is modified" (DeKimpe col. 11, 11. 5 8-59), and "a
fact table corresponding to the outline" (DeKimpe col. 12, 11. 41--42).
DeKimpe further discloses "the column for the Time dimension is unused"
in an example because "the Time dimension was deleted in the outline 500,
therefore the corresponding column is unused" (DeKimpe col. 13, 11. 8-11).
DeKimpe discloses "the data associated with a 'parent' or dimension itself is
retained," for example, "the data for the member, Time, was retained, and so
the values for the Time column are all Time" (DeKimpe col. 13, 11. 22-26).
In other words, DeKimpe teaches a fact table corresponding to an
outline whose modification leads to the modification of a relationship
database, and the fact table shows a column as unused and deleted from the
corresponding outline. Meanwhile, the claim is directed towards "receiving
an alteration request to mark a selected column in a database table as an
unused column" and "updating a database control table indicating that the
selected column is unused." The claim language is silent towards any
exclusion of deleting of a column, and instead just requires a request to note
that a column is unused.
5
Appeal2015-000867
Application 13/600,584
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that the
combination of DeKimpe and Seitz do not teach or suggest a request and
subsequent update to a database control table to note that a database table
column is unused. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
DeKimpe's fact table shows an unused column, which corresponds to the
indication of that column's unused status in the associated relational
database, teaches receiving an alteration request and updating a database
control table to indicate that a database table column is unused, as required
by claim 1.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of DeKimpe and Seitz teach or suggest "retrieving a get value associated
with the alteration request" and "retrieving the get value from the control
table," as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend "Seitz does not disclose 'retrieving a get value
associated with the alteration request,"' as required by claim 1, and instead
teachings "obtaining get values, but not get values that are associated with
an alteration request to mark a selected column in a database table as
unused" (App. Br. 9). Appellants further argue Seitz does not teach
"retrieving a get value from a database control table" (Id.).
Appellants' argument against Seitz separately from DeKimpe does not
persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
6
Appeal2015-000867
Application 13/600,584
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner's findings that DeKimpe
teaches an alteration request to mark a selected column in a database table as
unused in a database control table, and that Seitz teaches get values
associated with alteration requests to modify or change by inserting, joining,
updating, selecting, and deleting (Ans. 3--4). We further agree with the
Examiner's findings that "a control table is merely a database table" (Ans.
4).
For example, Seitz describes a query engine comprising "get value
routines 385 including a get logical table routine 387, a get select fields
routine 393, a get update fields routine 405, a get insert fields routine 407, a
get attribute value routine 389, a get hash value routine 391, a get tables
value routine 397, a get join value routine 399, a get 'IN clause' routine 401,
and a get 'ORSET' clauses routine 403" (Seitz i-f 119), and receiving a
request that "may implicitly specify the type of query operation (e.g.,
SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT, DELETE, PL/SQL, etc.)" (Id.). In other
words, Seitz teaches utilizing get values and retrieving them to perform
query functions.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or arguments that the
combination of DeKimpe and Seitz do not teach or suggest a database
control table and marking a database table column unused in response to an
alteration request, or performing get value retrieval in response to requests.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that DeKimpe's fact table
showing an unused column, which corresponds to the indication of that
column's unused status in the associated relational database, teaches
receiving an alteration request and updating a database control table to
indicate that a database table column is unused, as required by claim 1; and
7
Appeal2015-000867
Application 13/600,584
that Seitz's get value retrieval in response to query function requests teaches
retrieving a get value, as required by claim 1.
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of DeKimpe and Seitz teach or suggest "determining that the selected
column is unused by checking the control table," as recited in claim 2?
Appellants contend DeKimpe does not teach checking a control table.
App. Br. 11.
We agree with the Examiner's findings that DeKimpe teaches
"determination of an unused column by checking the table" (Ans. 5).
Similar to claim 1, DeKimpe teaches a fact table corresponding to an
outline whose modification leads to the modification of a relationship
database, and the fact table shows a column as unused and deleted from the
corresponding outline (see DeKimpe col. 11, 11. 58-59; col. 12, 11. 41--42;
col. 13, 11. 8-11, 11. 22-26).
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that the
combination of DeKimpe and Seitz do not describe checking that a database
table column is unused. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
DeKimpe' s fact table showing an unused column corresponding to an
outline shown with a dimension column deleted, which corresponds to the
indication of that column's unused status in the associated relational
database, teaches determining that a column is unused by checking the
control table, as required by claim 2.
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as commensurate independent claims 6 and 11, not
8
Appeal2015-000867
Application 13/600,584
separately argued (App. Br. 10), is sustained; and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 2, as well as commensurate dependent
claims 7 and 12, not separately argued (App. Br. 11), is sustained.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections RI and R2.
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
9