Ex Parte Cushing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

10855818 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID CUSHING, MARIUS COSMA, NEIL WARNER, and
HELMUT BEFFERT
____________________

Appeal 2010-003223
Application 10/855,818
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003223
Application 10/855,818

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-8 and 10-15, all the claims pending in the application. Claim 9 is
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ Disclosed Invention
Appellants disclose a system and method of multidimensional query
results processing (Spec. ¶ [0001]).
Exemplary Claims
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1, 5, 6, and 7, which are reproduced below with emphases
added:
1. A system for processing a multidimensional (MD) data set
produced from an execution of multidimensional query on a MD data
source, the MD data set comprising data for a report described by a
report specification based on an entity/relationship (ER) schema, the
system comprising:
a result set description generation module producing a result set
description matching the semantics of the report specification based
on the-ER schema from a MD data set description describing the
semantics of the MD data set using result processing information; and
a tabular row generation module converting the MD data set
into a collection of rows of data to generate a result set of the report
output as a tabular result set when the ER report specification
conforms to a tabular report.

5. The method as claimed in claim 4, further comprising
producing a full stack of members representing a row of data,

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed May 11, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 19, 2009),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 19, 2009).
Appeal 2010-003223
Application 10/855,818

3
producing the full stack of members including:
pushing a highest-level member of a dimension onto a stack;
traversing parent/child relationships within a dimension along
an edge to push each member at each level onto the stack;
popping a top member off the stack; and
pushing all siblings of the top member onto the stack.

6. The method as claimed in claim 4, further comprising creating
a header row, including:
setting a state of header to header nested;
performing a check header nested;
performing a check header current;
performing a check header done;
performing a check children;
performing a check nested;
performing a check current;
performing a check sibling; and
performing a check ancestor.

7. The method as claimed in claim 4, further comprising creating
a header row, including:
setting a state of an element to header nested;
checking for nested dimensions until there are no more;
setting the state of the element to check header current;
filling the dimension with nested fillers;
determining a summary level;
setting the state of the element to header done;
removing the nested dimension fillers;
checking all children of the element until there are no more
children;
setting the state of the element to check nested;
Appeal 2010-003223
Application 10/855,818

4
determining if there are any nested elements;
filling a current dimension with nested dimension fillers;
setting the state of the element to check siblings;
moving the MDDS Iterator to the next sibling;
keeping a row copy; and
setting the state to check ancestor.

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Cras ‘681 (US 2002/0091681
A1) and Cras ‘195 (US 2002/0059195 A1).2 Ans. 3-8.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend (App. Br. 13-20; Reply Br. 2-6) that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195 for numerous reasons, including:3

2 Because (i) claims 12-15 depend from independent claim 11 rejected under
§ 103(a) over the combination of Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195, and (ii) the
Examiner rejected claims 12-15 under the same combination (see Ans. 7-8),
we consider the omission of claims 12-15 from the heading statement to be
an oversight, and harmless error. Accordingly, we consider claims 1-8 and
10-15 to be rejected under § 103(a) over Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195.
3 Appellants present arguments on the merits with regard to independent
claim 1 (see App. Br. 13-17). Independent claims 10 and 11 recite similar
limitations and are not argued separately from independent claim 1.
Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2, 3, and 12-15
which depend from claim 1 (see App. Br. 13-20; Reply Br. 2-6). Appellants
merely recite claim language for independent claim 4 (App. Br. 17; Reply
Br. 3), which is not considered an argument for separate patentability.
Separate patentability is argued for dependent claims 5, 6, and 7 (see App.
Br. 17-20; Reply Br. 3-6). Separate patentability is not argued for dependent
claim 8, which depends from claim 7. Therefore, we select the following
representative claims: (1) claim 1 as representative of the group of claims 1-
Appeal 2010-003223
Application 10/855,818

5
(1) Cras ‘681 fails to teach or suggest an entity relationship (ER)
schema, a multidimensional (MD) data set description, and generating a
result set, as recited in representative claim 1 and similarly recited in claims
4, 10, and 11 (App. Br. 13-17; Reply Br. 2-3);
(2) the use or discussion of an ER schema (or its equivalent) and an
MD data set description generated from the ER schema is absent from Cras
‘681 (Reply Br. 2-3);
(3) Cras ‘681 fails to teach or suggest producing a full stack of
members representing a row of data, as recited in claim 5 (App. Br. 17-18;
Reply Br. 3-4);
(4) Cras ‘681 fails to teach or suggest creating a header row including
nine separate sub-steps, as recited in claim 6 (App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 4-
5); and
(5) Cras ‘681 fails to teach or suggest creating a header row including
fifteen separate sub-steps, as recited in representative claim 7 (App. Br. 20;
Reply Br. 5-6).
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-4 and 10-15 because the
combination of Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195 fails to teach or suggest an ER
schema, MD data set description, and generating a result set, as set forth in
representative claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 5-8 because Cras’ 681 fails to
teach or suggest the steps of producing a full stack of members representing

4 and 10-15; and (2) claim 7 as representative of the group of claims 7 and 8.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We treat claim 5 and 6 separately.
Appeal 2010-003223
Application 10/855,818

6
a row of data (claim 5) and creating a header row (claims 6-8) as recited in
those claims?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contention in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 13-20) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 2-6) that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with Appellants’ contentions as to claims 5-8 because
paragraphs [0089], [0117], [0151]-[0154], and [0156] of Cras ‘681 do not
disclose, teach, or suggest producing a full stack or creating a header row
including all of the detailed steps set forth in claims 5-8 as asserted by the
Examiner (see Ans. 5-7 and 15-18). Furthermore, we do not agree with the
Examiner that these features of claims 5-8 would have been obvious as
“steps in a memory that must be taken to traverse a tree” (Ans. 15, 17, and
18).
With regard to claims 1-4 and 10-15, we disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-5 and 7-14). We highlight and amplify
certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows.
Although the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 10-15 is based
on a combination of references, namely Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195, Appellants
only present arguments with respect to Cras ‘681 (see e.g., App. Br. 16).
Cras ‘195, referred to by the Examiner as “C” (see Ans. 3), was relied on by
the Examiner as disclosing generation of a result set based on an ER schema
Appeal 2010-003223
Application 10/855,818

7
from a MD data set (see Ans. 4 citing paragraphs [0004], [0006], and
[0061]-[0064] of Cras ‘195). We agree with the Examiner’s findings
regarding Cras ‘195 (Ans. 4), and as a result, we agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combination of Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195 teaches or
suggests Appellants’ invention as recited in claim 1.4
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 10-11 and 14) that Cras ‘681
teaches using a relational database that is known by those having ordinary
skill in the art to include an entity relationship schema. Notably, Appellants
do not rebut the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious
to derive an entity relationship schema from a relational database or
otherwise contend the Examiner’s conclusion regarding the correlation
between a relational database and an ER schema (see generally Reply Br. 2-
6).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1-4 and 10-15, and we will not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 5-8.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4 and 10-15 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Cras
‘681 and Cras ‘195.

4 Notably, Cras ‘681 also discloses creating an analytical report on top of a
multidimensional model built on top of a relational or multidimensional
database, and organizing data using a cube structure (Cras ‘681 ¶¶ [0003]-
[0008] and [0012]).

Appeal 2010-003223
Application 10/855,818

8
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 5-8 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195.
(3) Claims 1-4 and 10-15 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.

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-IN-PART

peb