Ex Parte Dehn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2012

11647768 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte RENE DEHN, MARTIN KAISER, and
GISELLA DOMINGUEZ ANZUINELLI
________________

Appeal 2010-004793
Application 11/647,768
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004793
Application 11/647,768

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 17 – 31. Claims 1 – 16 are canceled. App. Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm-in-part.
Invention
The invention relates to an article comprising software that receives
update parameters, packed as a long byte string, for updating a data record in
a database, unpacks the update parameters, and updates the data record in
the database using the unpacked update parameters by returning the
unpacked update parameters to a business application for database
execution. See Abstract.
Exemplary Claims (Emphasis Added)
17. An article comprising software for updating a database, the
software comprising instructions stored on a tangible computer
readable medium and operable when executed by a processor
to:
receive update parameters from a business application for
updating a data record in a database, the update parameters
packed in a generic format comprising a packed long byte string
and independent of a particular database table structure,
wherein the data recorded is associated with a database table;
identify a database table structure associated with the
database table;
reformat the update parameters into the identified
database table structure; and
return the reformatted update parameters to the business
application for storage in the database.

Appeal 2010-004793
Application 11/647,768

3
24. An article comprising software for updating a database, the
software comprising instructions stored on a tangible computer
readable medium and operable when executed by a processor
to:
transmit update parameters for updating a database table
in a database to an update module, wherein the update
parameters represent data records packed into a generic format
independent of a particular database table structure;
receive update parameters for updating the database table
in the database from the update module, wherein the update
parameters are received in a database table structure associated
with the database table; and
update the database table in the database using the
received update parameters.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 24 – 26 and 28 – 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bourbonnais (US 2005/0149584 A1;
July 7, 2005). Ans. 9 – 11.
The Examiner rejects claims 17 – 23 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bourbonnais and MacLeod (US 6,434,558 B1;
Aug. 13, 2002). Ans. 4 – 9.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Bourbonnais
and MacLeod teaches or suggests software operable to “reformat the update
parameters into the identified database table structure,” as recited in claim
17?
ANALYSIS
Claim 17 includes the recitation of “reformat[ting] the update
parameters into the identified database table structure.” The Examiner finds
Appeal 2010-004793
Application 11/647,768

4
that Bourbonnais teaches or suggests this recitation by describing rules
associated with business objects. See Ans. 5 (citing Bourbonnais ¶¶ [0064]
and [0065]). The Examiner also finds that Bourbonnais teaches or suggests
the disputed recitation because Bourbonnais also teaches supporting access
and manipulation of data in a relational database management system
(RDBMS) using structured query language (SQL) statements. See Ans.18.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because Bourbonnais
merely discloses what data will be moved into an archive storage system and
when the data will be moved, but does not teach or suggest reformatting
update parameters into an identified database table structure. See App. Br. 5.
Appellants also argue that “the Examiner fails to indicate how generally
accessing and manipulating data using SQL statements for performing
‘format and reformat’ operations” teaches or suggests the disputed
recitation. Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner shows that Bourbonnais teaches or suggests general
aspects of database management. See Ans. 4 – 5 and 17 – 18. However, the
Examiner does not show how the references disclosure teaches or suggests
reformatting update parameters into an identified database table structure.
The Examiner also does not show that MacLeod cures this deficiency in
Bourbonnais. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of Bourbonnais and MacLeod teaches or
suggests software operable to “reformat the update parameters into the
identified database table structure,” as recited in claim 17.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 17 and dependent claims 18 – 23.
Appeal 2010-004793
Application 11/647,768

5
Regarding claim 24, which does not recite software operable to
“reformat the update parameters into the identified database table structure,”
and to “return the reformatted update parameters to the business application
for storage in the database,” Appellants present no separate arguments. See
App. Br. 4 – 6; Reply Br. 1 – 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of independent claim 24, and claims 25 – 31,
which are dependent thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17 – 23 is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 24 – 31 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-IN-PART

msc