Ex Parte Fischer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2013

11644201 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARTIN P. FISCHER, GERNOT KUHR,
OLAF SCHMIDT, and BERNHARD BRINKMOELLER
____________________

Appeal 2011-007695
Application 11/644,201
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007695
Application 11/644,201

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 25-45. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-24
have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention is directed to a system and an
article for managing aged index data for a database (Spec. 1, ¶ TECHINCAL
FIELD).

Exemplary Claim
Claim 25, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
25. An article comprising software for maintaining index
data for a database, the software comprising instructions
stored on a tangible computer readable medium and
operable when executed by a processor to:

identify a plurality of data objects using a first index;

index a first subset of the data objects using a second
index based on a business categorization external to each
of the data objects, the business categorization
comprising a time a particular data object was accessed;

index a second subset of the data objects using a third
index based on the business categorization external to
each of the data objects;

receive a query for one or more of the data objects, the
query targeting the first index without specifying whether
to search the second or third index, the query further
Appeal 2011-007695
Application 11/644,201

3
including at least one parameter partially comprising an
age-based component;

dynamically determine whether to search the second or
third index based at least in part on the business
categorization and the age-based component of the at
least one parameter;

generate a new instance of the query suitable for
searching the dynamically determined second or third
index; and

execute the new instance of the query against the
dynamically determined second or third index.

REFERENCES
Yu
Crockett
Ferguson
US 2003/0061132 A1
US 2006/0190317 A1
US 2007/0083550 A1
Mar. 27, 2003
Aug. 24, 2006
Apr. 12, 2007

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
(1) Claims 25-33 and 35-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Crockett and Yu (Ans. 4-13).1
(2) Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crockett, Yu, and Ferguson (Ans. 13-14).

1 We note that although the heading in Grounds of Rejection (Ans. 4)
indicates the rejection only applies to claims 25-33 and 35-42, the Examiner
addresses claims 25-33 and 35-45. Therefore, we consider the omission of
claims 43-45 from the heading to be an inadvertent typographical error.
Appeal 2011-007695
Application 11/644,201

4
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 25-33 and 35-45
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Crockett and Yu
because the references do not teach the invention as recited in claim 25
(App. Br. 5-10). Specifically, Appellants contend neither Crockett nor Yu
teaches the steps of dynamically determining whether to search the second
or third index and indexing based on the time a particular data object was
accessed.
Thus, the issues presented by these arguments are:
Issues: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Crockett and Yu teaches or suggests:
(a) “dynamically determine whether to search the second or third
index based at least in part on the business categorization and
the age-based component of the at least one parameter;” and
(b) “index a first subset of the data objects using a second index
based on a business categorization external to each of the data
objects, the business categorization comprising a time a
particular data object was accessed”
as recited in claim 25?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning and adopt them
as our own. Appellants’ argument that because the “determining step” is
performed by a user instead of a machine, Crockett does not teach the
disputed limitation (App. Br. 5-9) is not persuasive. Appellants argue the
Appeal 2011-007695
Application 11/644,201

5
function must be performed by a database management system; however, the
claim does not recite this limitation.
Appellants additionally argue the combination of Crockett and Yu
does not teach the time a particular data object was accessed is used in
indexing (App. Br. 9-10). We are not persuaded. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings and further emphasize that to make a payment, the data
object would be accessed. Appellants argue a data object representing
payments may be accessed during a different month even though the
payments occurred during another month (Reply Br. 2). However,
Appellants are arguing limitations not recited in the claim. Specifically, the
claim does not require indexing based on the last time a data object was
accessed.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Crockett and Yu teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in independent claim 25. Independent claims 30 and 41 and
dependent claims 26-29, 31-33, 35-40, and 42-45 were not separately argued
and thus fall claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 25-33
and 35-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Crockett and Yu.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 34
Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of the invention as
recited in claim 34 over Crockett, Yu, and Ferguson, except to contend
Ferguson does not cure the deficiencies of Crockett and Yu (App. Br. 10).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness.
Appeal 2011-007695
Application 11/644,201

6

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 25-33 and 35-45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crockett and Yu is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Crockett, Yu, and Ferguson is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc