11930937 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2013)

Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 2013

11930937 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2013)

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. 11/930,937 10/31/2007 Richard Dean Dettinger ROC920070276US1 1534 46797 7590 12/17/2013 IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1 3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829 EXAMINER SINGH, AMRESH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2013 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 DEAN DETTINGER, JAN THERESA KARELS, and RICHARD JOSEPH STEVENS ____________ Appeal 2011-007503 Application 11/930,937 1 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal 2011-007503 Application 11/930,937 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-18, and 21-25, all the claims remaining in the application. Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, and 20 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to techniques for performing federated database queries. See Spec., ¶ [0001]. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer-implemented method for processing for a federated query, comprising: receiving the federated query, wherein the federated query requests data records stored in at least two data sources; determining one or more conditions included in the federated query, wherein the one or more conditions specify a first key field from a first data source and a second key field from a second data source; determining an alias relationship between the first key field and the second key field, wherein determining an alias relationship is performed using a data structure storing one or more alias relationships and wherein each alias relationship specifies at least two key fields, wherein each key field is from a different data source; determining, based on the alias relationship, a mapping of key values of the first key field to key values of the second key field, wherein the mapping specifies that a key value of the first key field and a key value of the second key field identify the same entity, wherein the mapping of key values of the first key field to key values of the second key field is performed using a mapping function stored in the data structure storing one or more alias relationships; Appeal 2011-007503 Application 11/930,937 3 generating a query plan for the federated query, wherein the query plan includes the mapping of key values of the first key field to key values of the second key field, and outputting the generated query plan. Appellants appeal the following rejections: R1. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Zhou (U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0130206 A1, June 7, 2007); R2. Claims 5, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhou and SQL, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SQI&oldid=82690868, last visited (hereinafter Wikipedia); R3. Claims 6, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhou and Britton (U.S. Patent Pub. 2003/0158841 A1, Aug. 21, 2003); R4. Claims 8, 16, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhou and Identifying key attributes in ER modeling, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20061115184254/http://www.brainbell.com/tutor s/php/php_mysql/ldentifying_key_attributes_in_ER modeling .html, last visited (hereinafter, “BrainBell”); R5. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness- type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-5 of copending Application No. 11/936,868; and Appeal 2011-007503 Application 11/930,937 4 R6. Claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 23, and 24 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 7 of copending Application No. 11/936,868 in view of Zhou. Claim Groupings Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Zhou Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 23, and 25 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Zhou discloses mapping of key values of the first key field to key values of the second key field, as set forth in the claimed invention? Appellants contend that “claim 1 requires mapping from a value for a first key field to a second key field; in sharp contrast, Zhou discloses mapping from elements in one schema to another irrespective of the data stored by schemas. . . . at no point is anything about a mapping from a value stored in a key field discussed” (App. Br. 15-16). Appellants further contend that “the schema elements in Zhou are not key fields that store key values at all (id.at 17). The Examiner found that in Zhou “a global element is a first key field from a first data source (global schema) and a local element is the second Appeal 2011-007503 Application 11/930,937 5 key field from a second data source (local schema/source)” (Ans. 8; see also Ans. 19-20). We agree with the Examiner. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to the following points of emphasis. Here, Zhou discloses that “[d]ata in individual healthcare facilities are stored and represented in local schemas . . . The localized schemas 114a- 114n are mapped to global standardized schemas 106 using a mapping representation module 108” (¶ [0041]; see also ¶¶ [0047] –[0054]). In other words, Zhou expressly states that data elements/values are represented in the schema elements. Similarly, Appellants’ Specification notes that schemas specify key fields and store unique values to identify the entities (see Spec., ¶ [0022]), which is consistent with what is being done in Zhou. For at least this reason, we find unpersuasive Appellants’ argument that Zhou’s schemas fails to disclose mapping key values, as set forth in claim 1. In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitation in the disclosure of Zhou, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 23, and 25 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zhou in combination with Wikipedia, Britton, and/or BrainBell Claims 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21, 22, and 24 Appellants have not presented separate arguments for dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21, 22, and 24 (see App. Br. 17-18). Therefore, Appeal 2011-007503 Application 11/930,937 6 these claims fall with the claims from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Double Patenting Rejections Appellants do not contest these rejections (i.e., R5 and R6) and instead request that the rejections be held in abeyance (see App. Br. 11, footnote 1). We note that arguments not made are considered waived. 2 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, we pro forma sustain the Examiner's provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims 1, 2, 5- 10, 13, 14, 16-18, and 21-24. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e), § 103(a), and double patenting rejections. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kis 2 See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, section 1.192(c)(7) [(now section 41.37(c)(1)(vii))] imposes no burden on the Board to consider the merits of that ground of rejection. . . . [T]he Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.”).