Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2010

10682133 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD D. DETTINGER and RICHARD J. STEVENS
____________

Appeal 2009-005164
Application 10/682,133
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: March 30, 2010
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LEE E. BARRETT, and HOWARD B.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-17, 26-41, 50, and 51, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2009-005164
Application 10/682,133

2
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to managing composite query
operations. A composite query operation combines two or more simple
query operations; e.g., the simple query operations of UPDATE and
INSERT are combined in an UPSERT operation. If an UPDATE operation
fails because a record is not found, an INSERT operation is performed.
Spec ¶¶ [0005], [0008]. Appellants describe logic for determining what part
of composite query operations tend to fail, such that appropriate query
operations can be selected to avoid needless query repetition. Id. at ¶¶
[0034], [0071]-[0073].

Representative Claims
1. A method of managing execution of query operations in a data
processing system, comprising:

issuing, by a requesting entity, a request to perform a composite query
operation defined by at least an initial query operation and a plurality of
subsequent query operations to be executed against a data repository of the
data processing system;

executing the initial query operation;

determining an operation status of the initial query operation;

selecting one of the plurality of subsequent query operations based on
the operation status;

performing the selected subsequent query operation;

updating the operation status based on a result of the subsequent query
operation;
managing execution of any remaining subsequent query operations on
the basis of the updated operation status; and
Appeal 2009-005164
Application 10/682,133

3
upon determining the composite query operation has completed,
returning a result of the composite query operation to the requesting entity.

9. A method of managing execution of query operations in a data
processing system, comprising:

issuing, by a requesting entity, a request to perform a composite query
operation defined by at least an initial query operation and a plurality of
subsequent query operations to be executed against a data repository of the
data processing system;

providing selection logic defining a next query operation of the
composite query operation to be executed;

providing a plurality of failure conditions for determining when a
failure of the composite query operation occurs;

managing, using a composite query operations manager, execution of
the initial query operation and the plurality of subsequent query operations
on the basis of the selection logic and the plurality of failure conditions; and

upon determining the composite query operation has completed,
returning a result of the composite query operation to the requesting entity.

Prior Art
Scalzo, Oracle DBA Guide to Data Warehousing and Star Schema, Prentice
Hall, June 4, 2003, p. 1-10, available at
http://proquest.safaribooksonline.com/0130325848

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-17, 26-41, 50, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Scalzo.

Appeal 2009-005164
Application 10/682,133

4
Claim Groupings
In accordance with Appellants’ arguments and claim groupings in the
Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 9.
Claim 1 will represent claims 1-8, 26-32, and 50. Claim 9 will represent
claims 9-17, 33-41, and 51. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

FINDINGS OF FACT
In “Scenario 4,” Scalzo describes a composite query (“upsert”) in
which a record may be updated, but a record is inserted when an existing
record is not found for an update. Scalzo at 6-8. In particular, Scalzo
discloses program code for preparing and executing “upsert.” Id. at 7-8.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Our reviewing court
has repeatedly warned against confining the claims to specific embodiments
described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). During prosecution before the USPTO, claims
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a
claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA
1969). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that
are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can
uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the
administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322.
Appeal 2009-005164
Application 10/682,133

5
“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference
disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as
in the claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Scalzo’s executing the “fgets” command to
update operation status corresponds to updating the operation status based
on a result of the subsequent query operation as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4.
The Examiner explains further that after each iteration of the “while” loop,
the “fget” is executed and returns the next record in the inputted file. The
return record is compared with “NULL” to determine current operation
status. At the end of the inputted, file, “fget” will return NULL and the
operation status is changed to “FALSE” to indicate that the last record has
been read and the program will exit the “while” loop. According to the
Examiner, Scalzo updates the operation status from “TRUE” to “FALSE” to
cause the program exit from the loop. Otherwise, if the operation status
were not changed, the “while” loop would run indefinitely. Id. at 10-11.
However, claim 1 recites updating the operation status “based on a
result of” the subsequent query operation. In the Examiner’s scenario, the
operation status in Scalzo is updated based on the last record being read.
The query operation result does not affect the update status; the update status
changes regardless of what the query operation result may be. We therefore
conclude that execution of “fgets” does not meet the requirement of updating
the operation status as claimed.
Appeal 2009-005164
Application 10/682,133

6
We thus agree with Appellants that the rejection fails to demonstrate
anticipation of claim 1 by Scalzo. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1. Each of
independent claims 26 and 50 contains the same limitation of claim 1 that
we have considered but is rejected on the same basis (Ans. 8). Claims 27-32
depend from claim 26. We therefore do not sustain the § 102(a) rejection of
claims 1-8, 26-32, and 50.

Claim 9
Appellants submit that Scalzo does not describe “managing, using a
composite query operations manager, execution of the initial query operation
and the plurality of subsequent query operations on the basis of the selection
logic and the plurality of failure conditions.” App. Br. 14-15. Although the
Examiner discusses the code disclosed at pages 7 and 8 of the reference,
Appellants submit that Scalzo in no way discloses that “each pass” through
the while loop is performed on the basis of the selection logic and the
plurality of failure conditions. According to Appellants, the Scalzo code
does not show a “plurality of failure conditions.” Id. at 15.
Appellants acknowledge (e.g., Reply Br. 2-3) that the Scalzo code
performs an “upsert” operation. The “upsert” operation in Scalzo is
consistent with the “upsert” operation described in Appellants’
Specification. That is, the logic is designed such that if an INSERT query
operation fails, an UPDATE query operation is executed. See Spec. ¶¶
[0071]-[0072]. Appellants’ remarks in the briefs, although nominally in
support of claim 9, seem to argue against the “fgets” command as applied
against claim 1. Appellants’ arguments appear not to respond to the
Appeal 2009-005164
Application 10/682,133

7
Examiner’s basis for finding that the Scalzo’s code describes logic that
meets the requirements of the “managing” step of claim 9.
Scalzo discloses the following “while” loop that performs the “upsert”
operation at pages 7 and 8.
/* Process data file records */
while (fgets (rec, sizeof rec, fid) != NULL) {
. . .
/* Obtain adjustment via lookup */
EXEC select adj_value
into :h_av:i_av
from lookup_table
where adj_lookup = :h_c2:i_c2;
if (sqlca. sqlcode == 1403) {
h_av = 0;
i_av = 0;
}
else if (sqlca.sqlcode != 0) {
. . .
}

/* First - try to update existing record */
EXEC SQL EXECUTE update_ command
USING :h_c1:i_cl,
:h_c2:i_c2,
:h_c3:i_c3,
:h_c4:i_c4,
:h_c5:i_c5,
:h_av:i_av;

/* Second - if update fails because record
not found, then insert record*/
if (sqlca.sqlcode == 1403) {
EXEC SQL EXECUTE insert_command
USING :h-cl:i-cl,
:h_c2:i_c2,
:h_c3:i_c3,
:h_c4:i_c4,
Appeal 2009-005164
Application 10/682,133

8
:h_c5:i_c5,
:h_av:i_av;
}
else if (sqlca.sqlcode != 0 {
. . .
}
. . .
}
. . .
}

Scalzo code at 7-8 (emphasis added).
As shown above, there are two occurrences of the determination “if
(sqlca.sqlcode == 1403).” As noted in the code comments, the second
occurrence tests whether a record update has failed, such that a record is to
be inserted; i.e., “/* Second - if update fails because record not found, then
insert record*/.” The code thus tests for a “failure condition” in accordance
with Appellants’ claim 9. In Scalzo, there is a failure in the composite query
(update or insert) when the update fails.
In Scalzo’s code, the “sqlca.sqlcode” is also tested prior to execution
of the “upsert” operation. Both occurrences are inside the “while” loop, and
are thus relevant in “each pass” through the “while” loop. Moreover, the
first occurrence also relates to a “failure condition,” because the test is
identical to that of the subsequent test.
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Scalzo thus describes a plurality,
or at least two, failure conditions such that “each pass” through the while
loop is performed on the basis of the selection logic and the plurality of
failure conditions. Appellants have failed to show that claim 9 has been
rejected in error. Further, as the Examiner indicates, the broadly drafted
“execution of the initial query operation and the plurality of subsequent
Appeal 2009-005164
Application 10/682,133

9
query operations” does not distinguish over the initial query operation with
respect to a first record in a file and a plurality of subsequent query
operations with respect to following records in the file. The law of
anticipation does not require that a reference “teach” what an applicant’s
disclosure teaches. Assuming that a reference is properly “prior art,” it is
only necessary that the claims “read on” something disclosed in the
reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or are
“fully met” by it. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 9. Claims 10-17, 33-41,
and 51 fall with claim 9. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-17, 26-41, 50, and 51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Scalzo is reversed with respect to claims 1-
8, 26-32, and 50 but affirmed with respect to claims 9-17, 33-41, and 51.

Appeal 2009-005164
Application 10/682,133

10
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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

rwk

IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829