Ex Parte Dehn et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 201311647802 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte RENE DEHN and MARTIN KAISER ________________ Appeal 2011-001878 Application 11/647,802 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 2011-001878 Application 11/647,802 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 1 – 12, 14 – 20, 22, 23, and 25 – 32. Claims 13, 21, and 24 are canceled. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1 – 15 in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Invention Appellants’ invention generally relates to data access and presentation and, more specifically, to systems, methods, and software identifying, executing, or otherwise utilizing a generic query for accessing a plurality of database tables. Spec. 1, ll. 4 – 6. Exemplary Claim (Emphases Added) 1. An article comprising software for accessing a database table, the software comprising instructions stored on a computer readable medium and operable when executed by a processor to: identify a generic query such that the generic query is independent of a particular database layout, wherein the generic query comprises: a standard portion of the generic query common to each instance of the generic query; and a placeholder that represents one or more database table fields excluded from the standard portion of the generic query and is operable to be activated or deactivated based upon the particular layout of an associated database table; execute a first instance of the generic query against a first database table having a first layout, the placeholder deactivated Appeal 2011-001878 Application 11/647,802 3 in the first instance of the generic query based on the first layout; and execute a second instance of the generic query against a second database table having a second layout disparate from the first layout, wherein particular fields of the placeholder specific to the second database table are activated in the second instance of the generic query based on the second layout. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 12, 14 – 20, 22 – 23, and 25 – 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dettinger (US 2005/0114318 A1; May 26, 2005) and Lawande (US Provisional App. No. 60/724,983; Oct. 7, 2005). Ans. 4 – 7. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Dettinger and Lawande teaches or suggests a generic query comprising: (1) “a standard portion of the generic query common to each instance of the generic query” and (2) “a placeholder that represents one or more database table fields excluded from the standard portion of the generic query and is operable to be activated or deactivated based upon the particular layout of an associated database table,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that all of the recitations of claim 1 are taught or suggested by the combination of Dettinger, which is directed to abstract statement aggregation and grouping support, and Lawande, which is directed to recommending materialized views for queries with multiple instances of the same table. See Ans. 4 – 7. In particular, the Examiner finds that Dettinger teaches or suggests most of the recitations of claim 1, including an Appeal 2011-001878 Application 11/647,802 4 identified generic query comprising a standard portion of the generic query common to each instance of the generic query and a placeholder that represents one or more database table fields excluded from the standard portion of the generic query. See id. at 4 – 6 (citing, e.g., Dettinger ¶¶ [0044], [0059], and [0071], Figs. 3 and 6). However, the Examiner finds that Dettinger does not specifically teach multiple instances of a generic query. See Ans. at 6. Therefore, the Examiner further relies on Lawande as teaching or suggesting multiple instances of a generic query based on different layouts. See id. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in relying on Dettinger to teach or suggest the claimed generic query because “Dettinger fails to disclose a ‘placeholder’ included in a generic query.” App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellants argue that in Dettinger “unselected fields are simply omitted from the query altogether, and a new query is generated that includes only the fields selected by the user.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 1 – 2. In other words, Appellants argue that Dettinger merely teaches using field selections to generate queries, rather than teaching or suggesting generic queries having both a standard portion and a placeholder that represents one or more database table fields excluded from the standard portion. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds that Dettinger’s element 202, an abstract query, teaches or suggests a standard portion of a generic query. See Ans. 5 (citing Dettinger ¶¶ [0041] and [0053], figs. 2 – 3). The Examiner further finds that the logical fields having one or more attributes in Dettinger’s data abstraction model 124 teach or suggest a placeholder that represents one or more database table fields. See Ans. 5 (citing Dettinger ¶ [0044] and fig. 3). Appeal 2011-001878 Application 11/647,802 5 However, as Appellants correctly note, in Dettinger an “abstract query is ‘transformed into a concrete query consistent with the underlying physical representation of the data using the data abstraction model 124.’” App. Br. 6 (citing Dettinger ¶ [0042]). Dettinger illustrates the interaction of the abstract query 202 and the data abstraction model 124 and figure 3. See Dettinger ¶ [0044]. The data abstraction model 124 includes “a field specification . . . for each logical field available for composition of an abstract query.” Id. That is, the abstraction model 124 defines what fields may be used to create an abstract query 202, but the abstract query 202 and abstraction model 124 are not themselves components of a generic query having a standard portion and a placeholder. See also id. at ¶ [0038] (“queries (referred to herein as ‘abstract queries’) are composed using logical fields defined by a data abstraction model 124”). The Examiner further finds that the fields of the data abstraction model 124 teach or suggest a generic query “placeholder that represents one or more database table fields excluded from the standard portion of the generic query and is operable to be activated or deactivated based upon the particular layout of an associated database table” because Dettinger teaches a user interface that allows for specific fields to be selected. See Ans. 5 and 20. However, Dettinger merely teaches selecting specific fields as part of a graphical user interface (GUI) for specifying a base query or an aggregation query. See Dettinger ¶¶ [0067] and figs. 9 – 12. The Examiner does not identify sufficient disclosure or any appropriate modification indicating that a placeholder representing unselected or unknown fields is included in the query of Dettinger. See Ans. 5 and 20. Thus, we agree with Appellants that Dettinger generates a new query that includes only selected fields, but fails Appeal 2011-001878 Application 11/647,802 6 to include a placeholder as claimed. See App. Br. 6 and Reply Br. 2. Since neither the data abstraction model 124 nor the GUI for specifying a query teaches or suggests the claimed placeholder of a generic query, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that Dettinger teaches or suggests a generic query comprising: (1) “a standard portion of the generic query common to each instance of the generic query” and (2) “a placeholder that represents one or more database table fields excluded from the standard portion of the generic query and is operable to be activated or deactivated based upon the particular layout of an associated database table,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 20. The Examiner does not show that Lawande cures this noted deficiency. See Ans. 6 – 7 and 21 – 22. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 – 12, 14 – 20, 22, 23, and 25 – 32, which contain the same or similar recitations. Because Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of these claims, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ additional arguments. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION We enter the following new ground of rejection pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Both claim 1 and claim 8 are directed to “[a]n article comprising software for accessing a database table, the software comprising instructions stored on a computer readable medium and operable when executed by a processor to . . .” (emphases added). The Specification does not clearly define either an “article” or a “computer readable medium.” Since the Appeal 2011-001878 Application 11/647,802 7 claims are each directed to an article comprising software that comprises instructions stored on a computer readable medium, the broadest reasonable interpretation of each claimed “article” includes a computer readable medium. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer readable medium” claims typically cover forms of transitory propagating signals per se which are non-statutory subject matter. See Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an “article,” as recited in claims 1 and 8, encompasses transitory signals. Therefore, claims 1 and 8 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory, propagating signal . . . is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ . . . [T]hus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”); see also M.P.E.P. § 2106 (I) (“Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories . . . [include] transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se.”)). Accordingly, we newly reject claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Dependent claims 2 – 7 and 9 – 15 are similarly rejected. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 12, 14 – 20, 22, 23, and 25 – 32. We newly reject claims 1 – 15. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Appeal 2011-001878 Application 11/647,802 8 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (37 C.F.R. § 1.197 (b)) as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . 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). REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation