Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2013

10365098 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 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.
10/365,098 02/12/2003 Richard D. Dettinger ROC920020168US1 7246
7590 06/25/2013
William J. McGinnis, Jr.
IBM Corporation, Dept. 917
3605 Highway 52 North
Rochester, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2013 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 D. DETTINGER, FREDERICK A. KULACK,
RICHARD J. STEVENS, and ERIC W. WILL

____________

Appeal 2011-0112361
Application 10/365,098
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 In Appeal 2009-004887 (dated November 30, 2009) an earlier panel
affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 17-23, 25, 36, and 36-38.
Appeal 2011-011236
Application 10/365,098
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-7, 17-23, 25, and 36-38. (App. Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
This invention on appeal relates to "data processing, and more
particularly to schema mapping." (Spec. 1). Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer implemented method of mapping
relational database schemas, comprising:

retrieving constraint data for a first relational database
schema, wherein the constraint data characterizes a first field of
the first relational database schema;

determining, for one or more fields of a second relational
database schema, whether any of the one or more fields of the
second relational database schema satisfies the constraint data;
and

mapping each of the one or more fields of the second
relational database schema that satisfies the constraint data to
the first field of the first relational database schema.

(Disputed limitation emphasized).

Appeal 2011-011236
Application 10/365,098
3
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 17-23, 25, and 36-38 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable based upon the combined teachings
and suggestions of Chang (U.S. Patent No. 5,627,979, issued on May
6,1997) and Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0169788
A1, published on November 14, 2002). (Ans. 3-9.)

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of the
obviousness rejection of claims 2-7, 17-23, 25, and 36-38 on the basis of
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

ANALYSIS

Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the
cited references, either alone or in combination, would have
taught or suggested "mapping each of the one or more fields of
the second relational database schema that satisfies the
constraint data to the first field of the first relational database
schema", within the meaning of claim 1, and the commensurate
language of claims 17 and 36?

Appellants contend:
Chang does not itself disclose mapping each of the one or more
fields of the second relational database schema that satisfies the
constraint data to the first field of the first relational database
schema.
Instead, the Examiner turns to Lee and suggests:
Appeal 2011-011236
Application 10/365,098
4
Lee however discloses the mapping between
relational schemas in paragraphs 100-101, 165,
263, 266-267, 267 and 289.
Examiner's Answer, p. 4. However, Lee in no way teaches
"mapping a relation schema to another relation schema."
Instead, Lee clearly describes generating a single relational
schema from an XML document type definition (DTD), and
then using a database configured according to that single
relational schema to store XML documents that conform to the
DTD. Put simply, Lee does not teach, show, or even suggest
"mapping a relation schema to another relation schema," as
suggested by the Examiner.
(Reply Br. 2-3; see App. Br. 15-17).
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive because the Examiner relies
not solely on Lee, but on the combination of Lee and Chang to teach or
suggest the disputed mapping between fields in first and second relational
database schemas. (Ans. 10). The Examiner finds Chang teaches mapping
between a first relational schema and an object schema. (Ans. 4, 10). The
Examiner finds Lee teaches mapping of document type definitions (DTD) to
a second relational database schema. (Lee Fig, 1; ¶ [0083], ¶¶ [0100-0101],
¶ [0050]; Fig. 1, metadata 34 36; Ans. 10).
Relying on these underlying factual findings, the Examiner concludes
the combination of Chang and Lee would have rendered obvious the claimed
mapping of fields between the first and second relational database schema.
(Ans. 10). Thus, the Examiner finds Chang's mapping from a first relational
database schema to an object database schema, in combination with Lee's
mapping from a DTD to a second relational database schema would have
taught or suggested "mapping each of the one or more fields of the second
relational database schema that satisfies the constraint data to the first field
Appeal 2011-011236
Application 10/365,098
5
of the first relational database schema," within the meaning of claim 1. (Id.;
emphasis added).
The Supreme Court guides that the “combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007) (citation omitted). 2
Here, we agree with the Examiner that Chang and Lee evidence it was
known to map fields to and from relational database schemas in a manner
that would realize predictable results. Regarding the constraint limitations
that are used for the claimed mapping, we found in our Prior Decision(6)
that the argued constraint limitations are met by Chang's schema mapper that
allows the user to define a mapping between a relation schema and an object
schema (FF 6 (Col. 11, 1.67 through col. 12, I. 1 ))."
However, we additionally note that Chang expressly teaches a Schema
Mapper with a design “intended to be general” that “applies to all types of
data stores:”

2 If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and
a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his
or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)]
and Anderson's-Black Rock[, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396
U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative—a court must ask whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

Appeal 2011-011236
Application 10/365,098
6
This section specifies the external design of the Schema
Mapper which provides object to data store schema mapping.
The design is intended to be general, particularly on the object
side, such that it applies to all types of data stores. For the
purposes of describing the following preferred embodiment of
the Schema Mapper, mappings between relational data stores
or other types of data stores which support a relational API
(e.g., X/Open CLI or ODBC) and objects are presented;
however, the design allows tailoring, particularly on the data
store side, for each specific type of data store.
(Chang, col. 11, ll. 37-47).
Thus, we find Chang expressly teaches a Schema Mapper capable of
“mappings between relational data stores” within the meaning of Appellant’s
claim 1. (id.). Given this teaching, we are not persuaded that Appellant’s
claimed “mapping each of the one or more fields of the second relational
database schema that satisfies the constraint data to the first field of the first
relational database schema” (Claim 1), would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
Thus, while the Examiner may be arguendo correct that “Chang does
not explain [in detail] the mapping between relational database schemas”
(Ans. 4), we find Chang teaches a general Schema Mapper that is also
capable of “mappings between relational data stores,” using constraint data
as claimed. Thus, we find the teachings relied on by the Examiner in Lee for
mapping between relational schemas (Ans. 4-5) are cumulative to the
aforementioned teachings and suggestions of Chang.

Appeal 2011-011236
Application 10/365,098
7
Notwithstanding Appellants' arguments, we find the weight of the
evidence supports the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate
legal conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-7, 17-23, 25, and 36-38, which fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 17-23, 25, and 36-
38 under § 103.
No time period for taking any action connected with this appeal may
be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

tkl