Ex Parte Chawla et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 15, 2010

10707471 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RAJESH CHAWLA and STEVE OLSON
____________

Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: March 15, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-55. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented an automatic and transparent mapping of data
retrieved from Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) operations into
relational database management systems. Relational operations can be
performed over relational data and data retrieved from SOAP operations.
See generally Spec. ¶¶ 0013-14. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for performing database operations on data obtained
from a web service, the method comprising:
creating at least one proxy table in a database, each proxy table
mapping to a method of the web service;
generating meta data about the mapping and storing the meta data
in a database table of the database;
in response to a database operation on a particular proxy table,
using the meta data for converting the database operation into a
format for invoking a particular method of the web service based upon
the corresponding mapping;
invoking the particular method of the web service;
converting results obtained from invoking the particular method
into data for use at the database based upon the corresponding
mapping;
performing the database operation on the data at the database to
generate a result set; and
returning the result set in response to the database operation.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Brown US 2003/0093436 A1 May 15, 2003
(filed Sept. 28, 2001)

Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

3
O’Farrell US 2005/0044164 A1 Feb. 24, 2005
(filed Dec. 23, 2003 and
claiming priority to
Provisional App. Nos.:
(a) 60/436,230, filed
Dec. 23, 2002; (b)
60/442,810, filed Jan.
23, 2003; and (c)
60/461,588, filed Apr.
7, 2003)

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brown and O’Farrell. Ans. 3-17.1

CLAIM GROUPING
Appellants argue claims 1-55 together as a group. See App. Br. 7-15.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of that group. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Brown
teaches all the limitations, except for: (1) generating meta data about the
mapping; (2) storing the meta data in a database table of the database; and
(3) using the meta data for converting the database operation into a format
for invoking a particular method of the web service based upon the
corresponding mapping. Ans. 3-5. The Examiner relies on O’Farrell to
teach these limitations and provides a reason for combining the references.
Ans. 5.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed November
14, 2007 and (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 6, 2008.
Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

4
Appellants argue the claimed invention is different from Brown and
O’Farrell. App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue the following features
are found in claim 1 and not taught by the cited art: (1) the system
automatically creates proxy tables and mappings given a Web Services
Description Language file describing the Web Service; (2) meta data about
the web services’ mapping are automatically generated and stored in the
system tables; and (3) using the meta data when a database operation on the
proxy table representing the web service is received to map the relational
data types to the appropriate representation. App. Br. 8-10, 12 and 13.
Appellants further contend that Brown’s mapping information (i.e.,
Document Access definition (DAD) file) is stored external to the database
rather than in the database as claimed. App. Br. 9-10. Appellants also argue
O’Farrell: (1) fails to teach the meta data invokes a web service method and
instead maps client data fields to back-end data source data fields and (2)
maps the meta data to a server or intermediary that is not required by the
invention. App. Br. 11-13. Finally, Appellants argue that O’Farrell does
not qualify as prior art. App. Br. 13-15.The issues before us, then, are as
follows:

ISSUES
(1) Have Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding
O’Farrell qualifies as prior art under § 102(e) with respect to the present
application?
(2) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Brown and O’Farrell collectively would have taught or
suggested:
Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

5
(a) creating a proxy table in a database, each proxy table mapping to a
web service’s method;
(b) generating meta data about the mapping and storing the data in a
database table of the database; and
(c) using the meta data for converting the database operation into a
format that invokes a web service method in response to the database
operation?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The filing date of the present application is December 16, 2003.
2. The application claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to
Provisional Application No. 60/320,009, filed March 14, 2003.
3. O’Farrell was filed on December 23, 2003.
4. O’Farrell claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to
Provisional Application Numbers: (a) 60/436,230, filed December 23, 2002;
(b) 60/442,810, filed January 23, 2003; and (c) 60/461,588, filed April 7,
2003.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 119(e)(1) of the Patent Act states:
[a]n application for patent filed under section 111(a) or section 363
of this title for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the
first paragraph of section 112 of this title in a provisional application
filed under section 111(b) of this title, by an inventor or inventors
named in the provisional application, shall have the same effect, as to
such invention, as though filed on the date of the provisional
application filed under section 111(b) of this title . . . .

Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

6
ANALYSIS
QUALIFICATION OF O’FARRELL AS PRIOR ART
At the outset, we turn to the threshold issue of whether Appellants
have demonstrated that O’Farrell does not qualify as prior art for purposes of
the present application. Appellants filed the present application on
December 16, 2003 and claim priority to Provisional Application No.
60/320,009, filed March 14, 2003. FF 1 and 2. Thus, the earliest effective
filing date accorded to the subject matter in the present application,
including the claimed subject matter, is March 14, 2003.
O’Farrell was filed December 23, 2003. FF 3. However, the 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) critical reference date of a patent publication entitled to the
benefit of the filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C.
§ 119(e) is the filing date of the provisional application if the provisional
application properly supports the subject matter relied upon to make the
rejection in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2136.03(III) (8th ed., Rev. 6,
Sept. 2007). O’Farrell claims the benefit of three provisional applications,
two of which have filing dates earlier than March 14, 2003. See FF 4. That
is, Provisional Application No. 60/436,230 was filed December 23, 2002
and Provisional Application No. 60/442,810 was filed January 23, 2003.
The critical reference date for O’Farrell therefore is: (1) December 23, 2002
for subject matter in O’Farrell’s publication having §112, first paragraph
support in Provisional Application No. 60/436,230 and (2) January 23, 2003
for subject matter in O’Farrell’s publication having §112, first paragraph
support in Provisional Application No. 60/442,810.
Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

7
The Examiner relies on pages 10, 15, 18, and 19 of Appendix B
(entitled “Dexterra Mobile Enterprise Platform ‘Powering Mobile Enterprise
Applications’ Executive Summary”) in Provisional Application No.
60/442,810 (hereafter Provisional ‘810), filed January 23, 2003, to find
§ 112, first paragraph support for the subject matter relied upon in O’Farrell
(Ans. 5) in making the obviousness rejection. See Ans. 27 and Advisory
Action, mailed October 29, 2007. Although the Examiner’s statement
regarding the correspondence between O’Farrell and its underlying
provisional application is terse, the Examiner nonetheless found that both
documents show the same subject matter. Additionally, pages 7 and 8 in
Appendix B show an Architecture Blueprint with a server that stores and
manages meta data. Having made these factual findings, the burden shifts to
Appellants to show why such factual findings are erroneous. See Ex parte
Yamaguchi, 88 USPQ2d 1606, 1613 (precedential).
In response, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on page 10
in Provisional ‘810 is different from the claimed invention, including failing
to mention generating meta data, storing the meta data in the database table,
and using the stored meta data to convert a database operation into a format
for invoking a method of a web service. App. Br. 14-15. However, to show
O’Farrell does not qualify as prior art , Appellants must demonstrate that
Provisional ‘810 does not reasonably support the relied-upon features of
O’Farrell (Figure 3 and ¶¶ 0012, 0074, and 0076) in formulating the
obviousness rejection. See Yamaguchi, 88 USPQ2d at 1613. Appellants
have not presented evidence that the cited portions of O’Farrell are not
supported in Provisional ‘810. See App. Br. 14-15.
Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

8
Additionally, identity of terms or figures is not required to
demonstrate the Provisional ’810 supports the portions of O’Farrell relied
upon by the Examiner. See Yamaguchi, 88 USPQ2d at 1613. Thus, while
there are differences between Provisional ’810 and O’Farrell, the Examiner
presents evidence that the portions of O’Farrell discussed by the Examiner in
formulating the art rejection are reasonably supported by Provisional ‘810 as
January 23, 2003. See Ans. 27. Moreover, mere conclusory statements
(e.g., “the above text in the provisional application makes no mention
whatsoever of generating meta data or storing meta data in a database table”
(App. Br. 14-15)) hardly persuades us of error in the Examiner’s factual
findings pertaining to O’Farrell and its provisional applications.
For the above reasons, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred
in determining O’Farrell qualifies as prior art.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
Brown
5. Brown discloses automatically generating web service operations,
including (1) eXtensible Mark-Up Language (XML)-based query or storage
and (2) Structured Query Language (SQL)-based queries. ¶¶ 0006, 0008,
and 0043.
6. Brown states XML-based query or storage involved decomposing
or breaking an XML document into parts for storage in the DB2 relational
tables. Relational data of the XML document is stored in tables 38 (not
shown) of database 29. ¶¶ 0043-44; Fig. 3.

Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

9
7. Brown discusses part of the underlying support for composition of
XML documents 35 from relational data stored in tables 38 and breaking the
XML document 35 into its components parts and stored into relational table
38 is provided by DB2 XML Extender. ¶ 0044; Fig. 3.
8. Brown explains the input into both storage and retrieval is the user-
specified mapping file called a Document Access Definition (DAD) 37.
¶ 0045.
9. Web service operation SQL-based query does not require the use
of the XML Extender and uses data in the database 29. ¶¶ 0043, 0046, 0047,
0049.
10. Brown teaches storing data about web services in database tables
38 and converting a database operation into a format for invoking a
particular method of the web service (e.g., SQL-based query to invoke DB2
stored procedures) based upon the table’s mapping. ¶¶ 0049 and 0054-63.
11. Brown teaches the Document Access Definition Extension
(DADX) configuration file defines operations that can be performed by the
web service, such as find all orders for a part. ¶¶ 0027 and 0050.

O’Farrell
12. O’Farrell teaches a Connector interface having multiple enterprise
data sources (e.g., 302, 304, 306, 308, 310) or other web services, a server
314 with metadata 312, and a client 316. The metadata 312 includes a data
source’s data definition mapped to views used to create the data on the client
side. For example, Order_ID from a data source is mapped to a business
object OrderID whose definition is stored in metadata 318 on the mobile
client 316. ¶¶ 0074 and 0076; Fig. 3.
Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

10
13. O’Farrell teaches delivering data from different enterprise data
sources to a mobile client through web services in a proper format for access
using the business objects on the mobile client 316. ¶¶ 0074, 0076.
14. O’Farrell teaches fully integrating applications and data so the
device has greater functional capabilities. ¶ 0009.

ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Attacking references individually does not show nonobviousness
where rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

REJECTION BASED ON BROWN AND O’FARRELL
We find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative claim 1. First, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 20) that
many of the arguments made by Appellants are not commensurate with the
scope of claim 1. For example, Appellants argue that the following claimed
features are not taught by the cited art: (1) the system automatically creates
proxy tables and mappings given a Web Services Description Language file
describing the web service; (2) meta data about the web services’ mapping
are automatically generated and stored in the system tables; and (3) using the
meta data when a database operation on the proxy table representing the web
service is received to map the relational data types to the appropriate
representation. App. Br. 8-10, 12 and 13.
Claim 1 recites, “creating at least one proxy table in a database, each
proxy table mapping to a method of the web service.” There is no limitation
of “automatically” creating and mapping or a limitation to a Web Services
Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

11
Description Language file. Claim 1 also recites, “generating meta data about
the mapping and storing the meta data in a database table of the database”
but not automatically generating and storing in a system’s table. Lastly,
while claim 1 recites “in response to a database operation on a particular
proxy table, using the meta data for converting the database operation into a
format for invoking a particular method of the web service based upon the
corresponding mapping,” claim 1 does not require mapping relational data
types to the appropriate representation.
Second, Appellants contend that neither Brown nor O’Farrell teach
creating a proxy table that maps to a method of web service in a database or
storing mapped information in a database. App. Br. 9, 10, and 13.
Appellants argue that Brown maps information to a DAD file that is external
to the database. App. Br. 9-10. Brown discloses providing web service
operations, including XML-based query or storage. FF 5. Brown states the
XML document is decomposed for storage in the DB2 relational tables. FF
6. Such relational tables 38 (not shown) store data of the XML documents
related to an XML-based query operation within database 29. Id. Thus,
Brown clearly teaches some relational data mapping to a web service (e.g.,
XML-based query) is stored in the database as relational or proxy tables.
Even assuming, without deciding, that XML Extender is external to
the database where the proxy table is located, Brown discusses using DB2
XML Extender partly to perform the store and retrieve operations of a XML
document 35 broken down into components. FF 7-8. That is, at best, the
user-specified mapping file 37 partly performs the function of the XML-base
query. FF 7. Additionally, another web service operation (e.g., SQL-based
Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

12
query) does not require the use of the XML Extender and relies on data in
the database 29. See FF 9. Thus, some web service operations use only the
data mapped in the tables of the database. See FF 7-9.
Third, Appellants contend that O’Farrell fails to teach using the meta
data for converting a database operation into a format for invoking a web
service based on the mapping. App. Br. 11-12. Particularly, Appellants
argue that O’Farrell teaches mapping the client device’s data fields to back-
end data source’s data fields, and does not use the meta data for converting a
database operation into a format for invoking a particular web service’s
method based upon the mapping. However, the Examiner relies on the
combined teaching of Brown and O’Farrell to teach this step. See Ans. 4-5.
Attacking references individually does not show nonobviousness where
rejections are based on combinations of references. Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097.
Brown stores data about web services in tables of databases and
converts a database operation into a format for invoking a particular method
of the web service (e.g., SQL-based query to invoke DB2 stored procedures)
based upon the table’s mapping. See Ans. 4; FF 10. Thus, O’Farrell has
primarily been cited to teach generating meta data of a table’s mapping and
using the meta data to invoke a web service based on the mapping. See Ans.
5. Combining Brown’s teaching for storing data about web service
operations within tables with O’Farrell’s teaching to generate meta data
about mapping (FF 12) would have predictably yielded storing meta data
within Brown’s relational database so that the combined system fully
integrates applications and data and increases the system’s functional
capabilities (FF 14). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

13
(2007). Given the background knowledge possessed by an ordinarily skilled
artisan, we see no reason why an artisan would not have similarly stored
such meta data in the combined Brown/O’Farrell system within the same
database so as to integrate all the data in a compatible format (FF 13-14) and
for efficiency. See id. at 418.
Also, as the Examiner suggests, O’Farrell’s mapping of meta data to
business objects can substitute for some of the DADX file’s mapping. See
Ans. 5. For example, Brown teaches the DADX file includes an operation,
such as find all orders for a part (FF 11), and O’Farrell teaches generating
the meta data related to Order_ID data of a data source or web service 302.
FF 12. Thus, when Brown and O’Farrell’s teachings are combined, an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized using O’Farrell’s meta data
(e.g., ORDER_ID), at least partially, to assist in invoking a particular web
service method (e.g., find all orders for a part for enterprise data source or
web service 302) based upon mapping. We are therefore not persuaded that
Brown and O’Farrell collectively fail to teach or suggest using meta data for
converting a database operation into a format for invoking a web service
method based upon the mapping.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown error in the
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 based on Brown and O’Farrell.
We will therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-55, which fall
with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-55 under § 103.

Appeal 2009-004220
Application 10/707,471

14
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-55 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc

JOHN A. SMART
201 LOS GATOS
SARATOGA RD, #161
LOS GATOS, CA 95030-5308