Ex Parte CHOU

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 20, 2003

09316436 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 20, 2003)

1 Application for patent filed May 21, 1999, entitled
"Accessing A Database Using User-Defined Attributes," which
claims the foreign filing priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119
of Taiwan (ROC) Application 87,108,378, filed May 29, 1998.
- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte PEILIN CHOU

Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,4361

ON BRIEF

Before KRASS, BARRETT, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the final rejection of claims 1-26.
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 2 -
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a method and system for accessing a
database using user-defined attributes.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for facilitating the access of data using
user-defined attributes, comprising the following steps:
(a) storing attributes in a first logging segment,
entries for the attributes containing information which
indicates subordinate relationships between attributes, the
subordinate relationships creating an attribute structure;
(b) when a user stores a data lot, allowing the user to
specify one or more attributes to be linked to the data lot;
and,
(c) storing in a second logging segment, entries which
show links from data lots to attributes.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Haegele 6,192,373 February 20, 2001
(filed May 15, 1998)
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Haegele.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 5) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
rejection, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 10) (pages referred
to as "Br__") and reply brief (Paper No. 12) (pages referred to
as "RBr__") for a statement of appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 3 -
OPINION
Claims 1-12
Claim 1
We begin by discussing how claim 1 reads on the disclosure.
The "attribute" in step (a) of claim 1 can be a word, a symbol, a
specific term, a number, name, location, organization, etc.
(spec. at 10, lines 15-17). The "first logging segment" of
step (a) corresponds to the table 10 in Fig. 1, where the
"attribute" consists of an "attribute name" entered by the user
and a unique "attribute number" (automatically generated when the
"attribute name" is entered by the user, spec. at 12,
lines 16-20) and where "information which indicates subordinate
relationships between attributes" refers to the "relative
attribute number" which is used to indicate subordinate
relationships (spec. at 11, lines 13-14). The "data lot" of
step (b) refers to a grouping of data, such as a document or data
file (spec. at 4, lines 18-19), which is linked to an
"attribute." The "second logging segment" of step (c) refers to
table 20 of Fig. 2, where each line indicates a "data lot,"
consisting of a "file number" and "location," and the "relative
property number" indicates a "link from data lots to attributes."
Haegele discloses a method for managing listings of indented
caption sets in a relational database of complete listings
(abstract). The example described is a method for managing
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 4 -
telephone directory listings. Figure 1 shows a sample listing
for the "ABC Department Store." The listing has indents at
different levels, e.g., "Apparel" is at the first level of indent
(indicated by "(1)"), "Men's" is at the second level of indent
(indicated by "(2)"), and "Suits," "Casual," and "Shoes" are at a
third level of indent (indicated by "(3)"). The indent has one
or more word labels and may have an associated telephone number
(note the 4-digit numbers) or other data (col. 5, lines 51-59).
The listing in Fig. 1 is used to create the "pre-index table" of
Fig. 2, which is used for searching. Each listing, here the
listing for the ABC Department store, has a unique "Listing
Object Identifier" (LOID); other stores or organizations would
have their own unique LOID. Each indent within a listing is
uniquely identified by a "Caption Set Object Identifier" (CSOID),
which is a varying length string, where each additional three-
byte string indicates another level of indentation. Each unique
level of indentation, which is the "Indentation Object
Identifier" (IOID), is represented by a three-byte string.
Haegele discloses that the CSOID "contains the complete hierarchy
and navigational tree" (col. 6, lines 20-22). The pre-index is
keyed to a relational database of the complete telephone
directory listings, including the telephone numbers (col. 3,
line 62 to col. 4, line 5). The CSOID and the LOID, and
optionally the IOID, are used as numeric keys to index the table
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 5 -
of Fig. 2 to the relational database to retrieve data from the
database (col. 5, lines 46-51).
The examiner finds (FR3; EA3):
With respect to claim 1, Haegele teaches a method for
facilitating the access of data using user-defined attributes,
comprising the following steps:
(a) storing attributes (col. 1 lines 12-36) in a first
logging segment (Fig. 1), entries for the attributes
containing information which indicates subordinate
relationships between attributes, the subordinate
relationships creating an attribute structure (col. 1
lines 12 to col. 2 lines 67);
(b) when a user stores a data lot, allowing the user to
specify one or more attributes to be linked to the data lot
(col. 6 lines 1-14); and
(c) storing in a second logging element (Fig. 2),
entries which show links from data lots to attributes
(col. 3 lines 62 to col. 4 lines 60).
Examiner interprets indents as attributes, First
logging segment as a [sic, an] Apparel under Men's (Suits,
Casual, Shoes) (Fig. 1), Second logging segment CSOID
(Apparel, Men's, Suits, Casual, Shoes) (Fig. 2)
Appellant argues that Haegele discloses none of the steps
set out in claim 1. As to step (a), it is argued that there are
no entries for indents that contain information that indicates
subordinate relationships between indents (Br7). It is argued
that indents are shown as empty spaces in Fig. 1 and Haegele does
not include separate entries for indents and does not contain
information that indicates subordinate relationships between
indents (Br7).
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 6 -
In the response to the arguments section (EA8-9), the
examiner sets forth a different correlation, as discussed by
appellant (RBr2-3).
We find the examiner's different correlation of claim 1
confusing and feel that the examiner could have done a better job
of explaining. Nevertheless, we find that step (a) is taught by
Haegele. The examiner found that Fig. 1 represents a "first
logging segment" and each indent (caption) to correspond to an
attribute; e.g., the word "Apparel" in Fig. 1, the caption for an
indent, is an attribute. The indents are hierarchical, as
indicated by the level of indentation shown in parentheses and
visually by the amount of the indentation, where each succeeding
level of indentation indicates a subordinate relationship; e.g.,
"Men's" is in a subordinate relationship to "Apparel," "Suits" is
in a subordinate relationship to "Men's," etc. Consider that
each line in Fig. 1 of Haegele corresponds to a line in
appellant's Fig. 1, so that Fig. 1 of Haegele is a "first logging
segment." The "attribute" is the word or words of the indent
("Apparel" or "Men's" or "Suits," etc.) and the "information
which indicates subordinate relationships between attributes" is
the indentation level shown in parentheses on the line. This
meets the limitations of step (a). The indentation information
from Fig. 1 is also present in Fig. 2, where the "attributes" are
again the word or words of the indent, and the "information which
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 7 -
indicates subordinate relationships between attributes" is the
indentation level for that word as indicated by the number and
value of three-byte groups in the "CSOID" column. Thus, Figs. 1
and 2 are both considered "first logging segments."
Appellant argues that column 6, lines 1-14, does not
disclose the subject matter of step (b) because it only discusses
what happens when a user wants to search listings, not what
happens when a user stores a data lot (Br8).
The examiner modifies his explanation by stating that
linking the table to the relational database with a Listing
Object Identifier (LOID) is "attributes to be linked to the data
lot" (EA8-9).
Appellant interprets the examiner's statement as directed to
step (b), but argues that the use of the LOID appears to be
totally unrelated to the subject matter of step (b) (RBr3-4).
We do not find a good explanation of how Haegele meets
step (b) since column 6 is directed to searching, not storing a
data lot, as claimed, and since we do not understand the reliance
on the LOID. Nevertheless, it is implicit that the user must be
able to specify an attribute to be linked to a data lot when the
database and table are created or updated, described at column 5,
lines 60-67. For example, in Fig. 1, the user must be able to
specify "Suits" to be linked to the telephone extension "2030" in
the database. As a matter of claim interpretation, we interpret
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 8 -
the limitation of "allowing the user to specify one or more
attributes to be linked to the data lot" (emphasis added) to be
met by specification of one attribute because of the alternative
word "or." Thus, Haegele implicitly meets step (b).
Appellant argues that step (c) is not shown by Haegele and
there is nothing in Haegele that discloses entries with links
from data lots to indents (Br8).
Figure 2 of Haegele is considered to contain the information
of both the first and second logging segments. The CSOID, LOID,
and IOID, are used as numeric keys to index the table of Fig. 2
to the relational database to retrieve data from the database
(col. 5, lines 46-51). Thus, the CSOID, LOID, and IOID are links
from data lots (data in the relational database) to attributes
(words identifying an indentation in Fig. 2), as claimed.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1.
Claim 2
As discussed in connection with claim 1, Figs. 1 and 2 are
both considered "first logging segments." In Figs. 1 and 2, each
row is an entry, where the word, e.g., "Men's," is the
"identification of an attribute." In Fig. 1, the level of
indentation, indicated by the number in parenthesis, is "an
indication of any subordinating attribute" because it indicates
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 9 -
the subordinate relationship. In Fig. 2, the length and number
of the CSOID is "an indication of any subordinating attribute"
because it indicates the subordinate relationship to specific
attributes. For example, in CSOID "001001," the first three
digits indicate the ID of the store, the second three digits
indicate a first indent under the store, which happens to be
"Apparel"; i.e., "Apparel" is in a subordinate relationship to
the store. The rejection of claim 2 is sustained.
Claim 3
The examiner points to column 1, line 40, to column 2,
line 67 (FR4; EA4), which is not specific enough to be helpful.
The examiner later presents a discussion of CSOID and words
(EA10), but this only discusses attributes and subordinate
relationships, not the claimed "attribute number, an attribute
name and a relative attribute number." Nevertheless, we find
that Haegele teaches the limitations of claim 3.
As discussed in connection with claim 1, Figs. 1 and 2 are
both considered "first logging segments." We consider Fig. 2.
In each row, it is clear that the word is the "attribute name."
The CSOID indicates a unique "attribute number" for the
particular attribute name. Part of the CSOID is considered a
"relative attribute number." For example, the first six digits
of CSOID "001002001" (for "Repair") and "001002002" (for "Tires")
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 10 -
are "001002," which is considered a relative attribute number
because it is an attribute number for the subordinating attribute
of "Auto." Claim 3 does not preclude the relative attribute
number from being part of the attribute number. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 3 is sustained.
Claim 4
The CSOID, IOID, and LOID are used as numeric keys to index
the table of Fig. 2 to the relational database to retrieve data
from the database (col. 5, lines 46-51). Thus, the CSOID, LOID,
and IOID are "an identification of a data lot" in the relational
database and the word in the row is "an identification of an
associated attribute." The rejection of claim 4 is sustained.
Claim 5
We do not find a "file number" and a "file location" in
Fig. 2 of Haegele. The examiner's reliance on column 3, line 62,
to column 4, line 60 (EA4) is not specific enough to be helpful,
and the reliance on the LOID and CSOID (EA11) is not persuasive
because these are keys to the relational database, not file
numbers or file locations. The rejection of claim 5 is reversed.
Claim 6
Haegele discloses that the CSOID "contains the complete
hierarchy and navigational tree" (col. 6, lines 20-22). The user
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 11 -
can traverse these attributes in Fig. 2. The rejection of
claim 6 is sustained.
Claim 7
The examiner's reliance on column 1, line 39, to column 2,
line 67 (EA4) is not specific enough to be helpful. The examiner
then points to column 6, lines 1-19 (EA12). This portion of
Haegele should have been pointed out in the first instance.
Nevertheless, Haegele is short enough that appellant is
responsible for all its teachings. We agree that column 6
discloses a text search to locate an attribute and then retrieve
a data lot. The rejection of claim 7 is sustained.
Claim 8
When the table of Figs. 1 and 2 in Haegele is created,
updated, or revised to add a new row entry, the user must be able
to specify a name for the attribute (the word in Figs. 1 and 2)
and must be able to specify to which attribute the new entry is
subordinate. This information is put into a row entry.
Column 5, lines 60-67, discusses updating or revising the pre-
index table. The rejection of claim 8 is sustained.
Claim 9
Haegele permits searching by specifying an attribute to
retrieve data lots from the relational database (col. 5,
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 12 -
lines 41-59; col. 6, lines 1-27). The rejection of claim 9 is
sustained.
Claim 10
Haegele discloses that the CSOID "contains the complete
hierarchy and navigational tree" (col. 6, lines 20-22). The user
can traverse these attributes stored in Fig. 2 to specify an
existing attribute. The rejection of claim 10 is sustained.
Claims 11 and 12
The user can present a SQL (structured query language) query
to search the attributes (words). An SQL query is a logic
combination of elements as recited in claim 11. In addition,
Haegele discloses an example query of "Mens' Shoes" which is a
union of two attributes (col. 6, lines 1-14), as recited in
claim 12. The rejection of claims 11 and 12 is sustained.
Claims 13-22
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites a database system having first and second
logging segments. Figures 1 and 2 of Haegele disclose a first
logging segment for the reasons discussed in connection with
claim 1. Figure 2 represents a second logging segment for the
reasons discussed in connection with claim 1 and for the reasons
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 13 -
to be discussed. Appellant argues that since Haegele discloses
only a single table with a single segment, it does not disclose
the two logging segments set out in claim 13 (Br13). However,
nothing in claim 13 precludes the two segments from being part of
the same table, e.g., there is no limitation that the logging
segments are stored separately. The only question is whether
Fig. 2 meets all the limitations for both the first and second
logging segments.
The main difference between claim 13 and claim 1 has to do
with the claiming of the second logging segment. Claim 13
recites: "second logging segment for storing file references,
each entry in the logging segment specifying a data lot and an
attribute designated for the data lot." Referring to Fig. 2,
each "entry in the logging segment" reads on a row of the table.
The "file references" and part of the entry "specifying a data
lot" read on the CSOID, LOID, and IOID, which are used as numeric
keys to index the table of Fig. 2 to the relational database
(file) to retrieve data from the database (col. 5, lines 46-51),
where a "file reference" is interpreted to be a reference to the
relational database. Claim 13 does specifically claim "a file
number" and a "file location" as in claim 5. The part of the
entry "specifying . . . an attribute designated for the data lot"
reads on the word in the word column. Thus, we find that
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 14 -
claim 13, as broadly claimed, is anticipated by Haegele. The
rejection of claim 13 is sustained.
Claim 14
The examiner refers to column 1, line 39, to column 3,
line 14 (EA6), which is not specific enough to be helpful. The
examiner then points to column 2, lines 56-62 (EA14). Although
this is more precise, it still does not address the claim
limitations. Haegele only discloses a one-to-one correspondence
between attributes and data lots, i.e., between each row entry
and the data lot in the relational database. Claim 14 is limited
to the case of more than one attribute for a single data lot,
which we do not find described, expressly or implicitly, in
Haegele. The rejection of claim 14 is reversed.
Claim 15
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 3, the
rejection of claim 15 is sustained.
Claim 16
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 5, the
rejection of claim 16 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 15 -
Claims 17 and 20
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 6, the
rejection of claim 17 and 20 is sustained.
Claim 18
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 7, the
rejection of claim 18 is sustained.
Claim 19
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 8, the
rejection of claim 19 is sustained.
Claim 21
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 11, the
rejection of claim 21 is sustained.
Claim 22
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 12, the
rejection of claim 22 is sustained.
Claims 23-26
Claim 23
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 16 -
When the table of Figs. 1 and 2 in Haegele is created,
updated, or revised to add a new row entry, the user must be able
to define an attribute by giving it a name to the attribute (the
word in Figs. 1 and 2), must be able to specify to which
attribute the new entry is subordinate by the level of
indentation, and this information is put into a row entry
assigned to a data lot. Column 5, lines 60-67, discusses
updating or revising the pre-index table. Thus, steps (a) to (c)
are implicit in Haegele. Haegele discloses allowing the user to
retrieve data lots from the relational database using the
attributes (col. 5, lines 46-51; col. 6, lines 1-27), as recited
in step (d). Thus, we find that claim 23 is anticipated by
Haegele. The rejection of claim 23 is sustained.
Claim 24
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 10, the
rejection of claim 24 is sustained.
Claim 25
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 7, the
rejection of claim 25 is sustained.
Claim 26
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 11, the
rejection of claim 26 is sustained.
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 17 -
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 18 -
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-26 is sustained.
The rejection of claims 5 and 14 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
- 19 -
DOUGLAS L. WELLER
431 MAGNOLIA LANE
SANTA CLARA, CA 95051