Ex parte Fourman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 12, 2001

08632240 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 12, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte CLIVE M. FOURMAN
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0249
Application No. 08/632,240
____________
HEARD: November 8, 2001
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, RUGGIERO, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The examiner rejected the appellant‘s claims 1-10 and 13-
22. He appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We
reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue in this appeal replicates a
multidimensional, “distributed” database. The database is
distributed by storing complete copies thereof at several
Appeal No. 2000-0249 Page 2
Application No. 08/632,240
locations in a computer network. When data are changed in one
copy, the change is made to, i.e., “replicated in,” the other
copies.
Heretofore, changes have been replicated in a two-
dimensional, distributed database such as “Lotus Notes.”® In
contrast, the appellant’s invention replicates changes in a
distributed database having at least three dimensions. More
specifically, an N-dimensional distributed database is sliced
into M-dimensional subarrays, where M is smaller than N. Each
subarray stores part of the data from the database and is
keyed to the database.
In contrast to the conventional format of a database, the
subarrays are arranged as strings of data including control
characters, e.g., tab and carriage return characters, to
separate adjacent data items and to indicate of the structure
of the data in the string. When the string of data of a
subarray is applied to update a copy of the database, the
control characters and the key included with the data string
Appeal No. 2000-0249 Page 3
Application No. 08/632,240
are used to identify where in the database to insert the data
from the string.
Claim 13, which is representative for present purposes,
follows:
13. A method for updating a distributed N-
dimensional database in a network of computers
having at least one communications link for
transferring data entered at one computer to
other computers in the network,
said method comprising:
(i) organizing a distributed N-dimensional
database, N being an integer greater than two,
to include:
a) a plurality of M-dimensional arrays
where M is an integer greater than one
and less than N, and
b) an ordered list of keys, each key
being associated with a particular M-
dimensional array and having a string
of N minus M (N-M) components which
identify the associated M-dimensional
array, said string defining the order
of the key in said list;
(ii) searching for and finding a desired M-
dimensional array in response to entry of a key
at one of said computers; and
(iii) modifying a found M-dimensional array
and replicating such modification to said
distributed array over the network.
Appeal No. 2000-0249 Page 4
Application No. 08/632,240
(Appeal Br. at A3-A4.)
The prior art applied by the examiner in rejecting the
claims follows:
Perez 5,319,777 June 7,
1994.
Claims 1-10 and 13-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Perez.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10 and 13-22.
Accordingly, we reverse.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of the appellant or
examiner in toto, we address their main point of contention.
More specifically, the examiner asserts, "FIG 7 of Perez in
and of itself clearly demonstrates distribution, in which
different users work on different slices of a multidimensional
database, and so must have copies of different parts of the
Appeal No. 2000-0249 Page 5
Application No. 08/632,240
global spreadsheet.” (Examiner’s Answer at 7.) In contrast,
the appellant argues, "[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in
Perez that the centralized database is distributed to other
servers or locations on the network." (Reply Br. at 4.)
In deciding obviousness, “[a]nalysis begins with a key
legal question -- what is the invention claimed?” Panduit
Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d
1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987)(emphasis in original). “Claim
interpretation ... will normally control the remainder of the
decisional process.” Id. at 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d at 1597. Here,
claims 1 and 13 specify in pertinent part the following
limitations: “a distributed N-dimensional database.”
Accordingly, the limitations require storing complete copies
of an N-dimensional database at several locations in a
computer network wherein the copies have the same number of
dimensions as the database.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed,
the next inquiry is whether the subject matter is obvious.
Appeal No. 2000-0249 Page 6
Application No. 08/632,240
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "’A prima
facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings
from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art.’" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, Perez stores parts of an N-dimensional database at
several locations in a computer network. Specifically, “[a]
user, e.g., user 1, of one of the personal computers connected
to the network, e.g., PC 1, seeking to use in a spreadsheet
some of the data stored in the multidimensional array
illustrated in FIG. 2, gains access to the table server
storing this array, e.g., server 11, ....” Col. 6, ll. 23-27.
Appeal No. 2000-0249 Page 7
Application No. 08/632,240
“After gaining access, user 1 instructs the transmission of a
selected ‘slice’ of data from the table server to the PC.”
Id. at ll. 28-30. “At the same time ... a user e.g., user 3,
of one of the other PC's associated with the network, e.g., PC
3, can select and use a different slice of data from the same
multidimensional array ....” Col. 7, ll. 3-7.
The reference’s slices of data, however, are not complete
copies of the multidimensional array. To the contrary, the
slices represent only parts of the multidimensional array.
Specifically, a user stores a slice “to use in a spreadsheet
some of the data stored in the multidimensional array ....”
Col. 6, ll. 24-25 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the slices
of data do not have the same number of dimensions as the
multidimensional
array. The array is four-dimensional. Specifically, “FIG. 2
illustrates the structure of a multidimensional array of data,
in this case an array having four dimensions ....” Col. 5,
ll. 17-19. In contrast, the slices are only two-dimensional.
Appeal No. 2000-0249 Page 8
Application No. 08/632,240
Specifically, “this slice of data is illustrated in FIGS. 7
and 8 as a two-dimensional slice ....” Col. 6, ll. 30-31.
Because Perez stores only two-dimensional parts of its
four-dimensional array at several locations in a computer
network, we are not persuaded that teachings from the applied
prior art would have suggested the limitations of “a
distributed N-dimensional database.” Therefore, we reverse
the rejection of claims 1 and 13. We also reverse the
rejection of claims 2-12 and 14-22, which respectively depend
from claims 1 and 13.
CONCLUSION
Appeal No. 2000-0249 Page 9
Application No. 08/632,240
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-10 and 13-22 under
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2000-0249 Page 10
Application No. 08/632,240
LLB/kis
NIXON & VANDERHYE
1100 NORTH GLEBE ROAD
8th FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22201