Ex Parte Garfinkle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 17, 2017

12007444 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2017)

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.
12/007,444 01/10/2008 Norton Garfinkle 36985-255315 8960
59830 7590 11/30/2017
TED SABETY, c/o Sabety +associates, PLLC
830 Third Avenue
5 th Floor
New York, NY 10022
EXAMINER
PHAM, TUAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2017 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):
TED@SABETY.NET
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
docket@ sabety.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NORTON GARFINKLE and RICHARD GARFINKLE
Appeal 2017-004007
Application 12/007,444
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 27 through 29. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-004007
Application 12/007,444
INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to a method for storing data in
virtual multidimensional blocks and accessing and retrieving desired
information from these blocks. Spec., Abstract. Claim 27 is illustrative of
the invention and reproduced below:
27. A method executed by a computer system
comprised of a non-transitory data storage device for storing a
plurality of actual data values received from a location external
to the system in a database organized as a hierarchical tree
structure of datablocks comprising the steps of:
creating a datablock that is part of the hierarchical tree
structure of datablocks;
assigning a plurality of pre-determined dimensions to the
created datablock, where each dimension is associated with at
least one of the actual data values to be stored and has a
corresponding associated range test;
assigning for each of the corresponding range tests a
maximum and minimum parameter value for its corresponding
dimension, where the maximum and minimum values serve as
sufficient information for the corresponding range test to
determine if a particular one of the actual data values of the
corresponding dimension lies within a predetermined range
defined by the maximum and minimum values;
determining a datablock by executing a program using
the assigned parameter values that determines the
corresponding range test in order to determine if at least one of
the actual data values received from a location external to the
storage system to be stored in the database lies within the range
of the corresponding dimension associated with the determined
datablock; and
executing a program to store in the determined datablock
either the received data values that meet the range test or a
pointer to a memory location where the data values that meet
the range test are stored.
2
Appeal 2017-004007
Application 12/007,444
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 27 through 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bumbulis (US 2003/0204513) and Nelson (US
2007/0130032). Final Act. 3-8.1
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, on pages 5 through 9 of the Appeal Brief and pages
2 through 7 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 27, 28, and 29 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by these
arguments is did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bumbulis
and Nelson teaches a dimension associated with an actual data value and a
test range with a maximum and minimum parameter value which is used to
determine if the actual data value lies within the range, as recited in each of
the claims.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We agree with Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 27 through 29.
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments finding that
Bumbulis’s B-tree index fields are dimensions and cites a sorting operation
as storing values of the index within ranges. Answer 5 (citing Bumbulis
paragraphs 25, 227—229). The Examiner also relies upon Nelson to clarity
Bumbulis’s teaching of a range test, as a dimension value constraint used in
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 26, 2016,
the Final Office Action mailed July 22, 2015, and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed November 10, 2016.
3
Appeal 2017-004007
Application 12/007,444
determination of where a value will be incorporated. Answer 6 (citing
Nelson para. 46).
Appellants argue:
Bumbulis is determining “... which type of index should be
created” based on whether the key length falls within a range of
being “very short” or “very long.” In other words, Bumbulis is
selecting which database architecture to use based on the key
length required by the data table. The reference in this
paragraph to “range” isn’t the range of data values being stored,
but rather, the range of size of the keys and therefor the type of
data organization to be used. Logically, the key length is not
the value of the key. A key of binary number 0111 has a
different value from a key 0001, which has the same key
length-4 bits. Therefore Bumbulis’ “range test” has nothing to
do with the values of the data being stored, but rather the size of
the data table and therefore which storage architecture should
be used for the data set when it is initialized.
Reply Br. 6. Further, Appellants argue Nelson is not related to the database
architecture of Bumbulis, and that the range discussed in Nelson is related to
data entry to verify that data being keyed in is within a rule set or a mistake.
Reply Br. 6 (citing Nelson, paras. 37, 47, and 48).
We concur with Appellants, the range discussed in paragraph 228 of
Bumbulis is directed to the width of the columns being indexed and key
length, not the values within the columns. Contrary to the Examiner’s
statement, Nelson’s teaching does not clarity that the range of Bumbulis’s
teaching is applying a range test to a value. Further, while paragraph 227 of
Bumbulis discusses sorting the data in columns as part of the process of
indexing the data, we do not find sufficient evidence in the paragraphs cited
by the Examiner to show that Bumbulis teaches that a range of values is
associated with an index. Further, the Examiner has not shown that the rules
for data entry constraints of Nelson would be applied to index data already
4
Appeal 2017-004007
Application 12/007,444
entered in a database to create dimensions as claimed. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 27, 28, and 29.
DECISION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27 through 29.
REVERSED
5