11953935 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2014)

Ex Parte DETTINGER et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 21, 2014

11953935 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/953,935 12/11/2007 RICHARD D. DETTINGER ROC920040198US2 3073 46797 7590 04/21/2014 IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1 3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829 EXAMINER AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/21/2014 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD D. DETTINGER and DANIEL P. KOLZ ____________ Appeal 2011-009758 Application 11/953,935 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and LORA M. GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges. ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1-18 (App. Br. 5; Ans. 2). Examiner entered a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 The Real Party in Interest is International Business Machines Corporation (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2011-009758 Application 11/953,935 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to a method of providing an abstraction of a relational database and a computer-readable storage medium containing a plurality of instructions which, when executed on a computer system is configured to perform operations. Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, and 14 are representative and are reproduced in the Claims Appendix of Appellants’ Brief. Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dettinger.2 ISSUE Does the preponderance of evidence on this record support Examiner’s finding that Dettinger teaches Appellants’ claimed invention? FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF) FF 1. Dettinger’s Figure 3 is reproduced below: “FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating the operation of a runtime component” (Dettinger 3: ¶ [0017]). 2 Dettinger et al., US 2003/0167274 A1, published September 4, 2003. Appeal 2011-009758 Application 11/953,935 3 FF 2. With reference to Dettinger’s Figure 3, Dettinger teaches [A]n illustrative runtime method 300 exemplifying one embodiment of the operation of . . . [Dettinger’s] runtime component. . . . The method 300 is entered at step 302 when the runtime component . . . receives as input an instance of an abstract query . . . . At step 304, the runtime component . . . reads and parses the instance of the abstract query and locates individual selection criteria and desired result fields. At step 306, the runtime component . . . enters a loop (comprising steps 306, 308, 310 and 312) for processing each query selection criteria statement present in the abstract query, thereby building a data selection portion of a Concrete Query. . . . At step 308, the runtime component . . . uses the field name from a selection criterion of the abstract query to look up the definition of the field in the data repository abstraction . . . . As noted above, the field definition includes a definition of the access method used to access the physical data associated with the field. The runtime component . . . then builds (step 310) a Concrete Query Contribution for the logical field being processed. As defined herein, a Concrete Query Contribution is a portion of a concrete query that is used to perform data selection based on the current logical field. A concrete query is a query represented in languages like SQL and XML Query and is consistent with the data of a given physical data repository (e.g., a relational database or XML repository). Accordingly, the concrete query is used to locate and retrieve data from a physical data repository, represented by the databases . . . . The Concrete Query Contribution generated for the current field is then added to a Concrete Query Statement. The method 300 then returns to step 306 to begin processing for the next field of the abstract query. Accordingly, the process entered at step 306 is iterated for each data selection field in the abstract query, thereby contributing additional content to the eventual query to be performed. After building the data selection portion of the concrete query, the runtime component . . . identifies the information to be returned as a result of query execution. (Id. at 6: ¶¶ [0056]-[0057] (emphasis added).) Appeal 2011-009758 Application 11/953,935 4 FF 3. Examiner finds that Dettinger’s paragraphs 56-57 teach the generation of “an intermediate representation from . . . [an] abstract query,” wherein a “runtime component reads and parses an instance of the abstract query and locates selection criteria,” enters a processing loop to build a data selection portion for a concrete query, and “after building the data selection [portion] (understood to be the intermediate representation/step), the runtime component identifies information to be returned” (Ans. 10-11 (emphasis removed)). ANALYSIS Claim 1: The method of Appellants’ claim 1 comprises, inter alia, the step of providing a runtime component configured to process an abstract query by generating an intermediate representation of the abstract query (Appellants’ Claim 1; see also Appellants’ Claim 10 (directed to a computer-readable storage medium)). Examiner finds that Dettinger’s “data selection portion” represents the intermediate representation of the abstract query required by Appellants’ claimed invention (FF 3). As Dettinger explains, the data selection portion is derived from a process step that precedes the step that builds the “Concrete Query Contribution” (FF 2). Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that Dettinger fails to teach Appellants’ claimed invention because Dettinger’s “‘concrete query contribution’ provides executable SQL used to retrieve information from the underlying database and is in no way an ‘intermediate representation’” (Reply Br. 3; see generally App. Br. 11-14). Arguments not made are waived. Appeal 2011-009758 Application 11/953,935 5 Claim 2: Appellants’ claim 2 depends from and further limits the intermediate representation of the abstract query of Appellants’ claim 1 to comprise an abstract query plan that comprises, inter alia, a set of join relationships that indicate how the plurality of table instances are related to one another relative to the abstract query (Appellants’ Claim 2; see also Appellants’ Claim 11 (directed to a computer-readable storage medium)). Appellants contend that [N]one of the[] passages[, specifically, paragraphs 41, 42, 45- 48, 52-54, and 56-57 of Dettinger, as relied upon by Examiner,] describe anything at all related to “a set of join relationships that indicate how the plurality of table instances are related to one another relative to the abstract query” . . . as recited by . . . claims [2 and 11]. (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 2-3.) We agree. Further, rather than explaining how Dettinger meets the foregoing requirement of Appellants’ claims 2 and 11, “Examiner submits that Dettinger teaches generating an intermediate representation from the abstract query” (Ans. 11-12). CONCLUSION OF LAW The preponderance of evidence on this record supports Examiner’s finding that Dettinger teaches Appellants’ claimed invention as it relates to Appellants’ claims 1 and 10. The rejection of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dettinger is affirmed. Claims 3, 4, and 6-9 are not separately argued and fall together with claim 1. Claims 12, 13, and 15-18 are not separately argued and fall together with claim 10. The preponderance of evidence on this record fails to support Examiner’s finding that Dettinger teaches Appellants’ claimed invention as it relates to Appellants’ claims 2, 5, 11, and 14. The rejection of claims 2, 5, Appeal 2011-009758 Application 11/953,935 6 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dettinger is reversed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART cdc