Ex Parte Dheap et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2016

12728780 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121728,780 03/22/2010
75916 7590 04/15/2016
IBM AUS IPLA W (GLF)
c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC
4521 Copper Mountain Lane
Richardson, TX 75082
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
VIJAYDHEAP
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
AUS920100014US1 5981
EXAMINER
ZAIDI, SYED A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
dpandya@garglaw.com
uspto@garglaw.com
garglaw@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIJA Y DHEAP,
ABHINA YA RA VIND ER NAGP AL, SANDEEP R. PATIL,
and YAN STEIN
Appeal2014-009663
Application 12/728,7801
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009663
Application 12/728,780
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to a computer-
implemented method, system, and computer-usable program code for
applying a security policy as a query predicate. Spec. i-f 1.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added):
1. A computer implemented method for applying a
security policy as a query predicate, the computer implemented
method comprising:
receiving a query, the query being a request for data, the
query being directed to a data repository executing in a data
processing system;
identifying the security policy, the security policy being a
security policy applicable to the query;
determining a predicate corresponding to the security
policy;
modifying the query to include the predicate;
modifj;ing a schema of the data repository to process the
predicate by combining a part of a second schema with the
schema, wherein the schema of the data repository comprises a
plurality of tables forming a database, wherein the second
schema comprises at least one table that is external to the
database, wherein the predicate cannot be processed using data
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Apr.
14, 2014); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 4, 2014); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 18, 2014); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Dec. 5, 2013); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Mar. 22,
2010).
2
Appeal2014-009663
Application 12/728,780
available in the schema alone, and wherein the second schema
corresponds to the security policy; and
sending the modified query to the data repository.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Hall et al. ("Hall") US 5,675,785 Oct. 7, 1997
Hui et al. ("Hui") US 2005/0055336 Al Mar. 10, 2005
Lei US 2008/0313134 A 1 Dec. 18, 2008
Rejections on Appeal
RI. Claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Lei and Hall. Final
Act. 5.
R2. Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Lei, Hall, and Hui. Final Act. 19.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 10-16), we decide the
appeal of Rejection RI of claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20 on the basis of
representative claim 1. We separately address remaining claims 7 and 14 in
Rejection R2, infra.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
3
Appeal2014-009663
Application 12/728,780
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so
that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to representative
claim 1, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding
representative claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
1. § 103(a) Rejection RI of Claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20
Issue
Appellants argue (App. Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 2-5) the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Lei and Hall is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the contested limitation of claim 1, i.e.:
modifYing a schema of the data repository to process the
predicate by combining a part of a second schema with the
schema, wherein the schema of the data repository comprises a
plurality of tables forming a database, wherein the second
schema comprises at least one table that is external to the
database, wherein the predicate cannot be processed using data
available in the schema alone, and wherein the second schema
corresponds to the security policy ... [?]
4
Appeal2014-009663
Application 12/728,780
Analysis
Appellants contend:
[HJall only teaches a method for modifying a query by
combining two columns in the existing schema to create a
common column in the existing schema. These teachings in
Hall are insufficient to teach or suggest all the features of claim
1.
As is evident from the plain text of the claim, the combining
occurs across different schemas, not within a single schema.
[C]ombining tables or table columns within a schema of a
single database is insufficient to teach or suggest combining
tables or table columns inside a database with tables or table
columns outside the database.
App. Br. 15.
Appellants further contend "Examiner's argument suffers from a
similar fundamental flaw. A table is a part of a database schema; a table is
not itself the database schema." Reply Br. 2.
However, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree
with the Examiner's finding that Hall's fact tables, which reside on different
machines and different DBMSs, which can be partitioned across multiple
servers, teach or at least suggest a plurality of "schemas," where a "second
schema comprises at least one table that is external to the database," as
recited in claim 1. Ans. 3 (citing Hall, col. 8:60-9:25). Appellants do not
point to particular definition in the Specification or present other evidence
that would preclude the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation that
the claim term "schemas" encompass Hall's fact tables. In fact, claim 1
defines "schema" in accord with the Examiner's interpretation: "wherein the
5
Appeal2014-009663
Application 12/728,780
schema of the data repository comprises a plurality of tables forming a
database."
Furthennore, the Supreme Court has determined the conclusion of
obviousness can be based on the inten-elated teachings of nrnltip1e patents,
the effects of demands known to the design cormnunity or present in the
marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). The skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skmed artisan is "a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 420-21. In KSR, the Court
stated "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
KS.1?., 550 U.S. at 416.
Here, Appellants have presented no evidence that combining Hall's
fact tables to process Lei's predicate was "uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skilI 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, we find Appellants' invention is simply a combination of known
teachings that would have realized a predictable result. In particular, we
find processing a predicate by combining fact tables across multiple
databases, as claimed, was known in the art, and well within the capability
of an artisan having ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by the teachings
and suggestions of Hall. See Hall, claim 1.
6
Appeal2014-009663
Application 12/728,780
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art to
teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in
the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative independent
claim 1, and the grouped claims which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping,
supra.
2. § 103(a) Rejection R2 of Claims 7 and 14
In view of the lack of any substantive arguments directed to
obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 7 and 14 under§ 103 (see App. Br. 16),
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. When Appellants do
not substantively argue the patentability of dependent claims, the claims
stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 7
and 14.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2-5) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note arguments raised in a reply brief that were not raised in
the appeal brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's
Answer will not be considered except for good cause. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41 (b )(2).
7
Appeal2014-009663
Application 12/728,780
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections RI
and R2 of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art
combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8