Ex Parte Goldberg et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2008

10104851 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT N. GOLDBERG, YURY KAMEN, SYED M. ALI, and
BRUCE K. DANIELS
____________

Appeal 2008-0687
Application 10/104,851
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: June 27, 2008
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, ALLEN R. MACDONALD,
and THU ANN DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 2 through 5, 7 through 10, 12, and 15. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2008-0687
Application 10/104,851

As best representative of the disclosed and claimed invention,
independent claim 15 is reproduced below:
15. A computer readable medium comprising instructions, executed
by a processor, to cause a computer system to:

create a platform-independent query:

create an object-database mapping for a first platform;

created a first platform specification defining the first platform upon
which a first query object is to be executed;

generate the first query object using the platform-independent query,
the first platform specification, and the object-database mapping for the first
platform;

create an object-database mapping for a second platform;

create a second platform specification defining the second platform
upon which a second query object is to be executed; and

generate the secondary query object using the platform-independent
query, the second platform specification, and the object-database mapping
for the second platform,

wherein the first platform comprises a first database and the first
database executes the first query object and a second platform comprises a
second database and the second database executes the second query object.

The following reference is relied on by the Examiner:
Goldberg US 6,571,232 B1 May 27, 2003
(Filing data Nov. 1. 1999)

2
Appeal 2008-0687
Application 10/104,851

Claims 2 through 5, 7 through 10, 12, and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and being anticipated by Goldberg1
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief (no Reply Brief has been filed) for Appellants’
positions, and to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINON
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as expanded
upon here, we sustain the outstanding rejection of all claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 102. The Brief presents arguments only as to independent claim
15, with statements at the bottom of page 10 of the principal Brief that all
other dependent claims fall with our consideration of claim 15.
As to the rejection that remains for our consideration on appeal,
Appellants’ arguments directed to Goldberg and the subject matter of
independent claim 15 at pages 11 through 15 of the Brief (labeled as
arguments D1-D4) have been directly addressed by the Examiner in the
responsive arguments portion of the Answer at pages 6 through 8. We agree
with the Examiner’s assessment of and the claim correlations to Goldberg.
As to the subject matter of independent claim 15, the claimed first and
second platforms and query objects may be identical as well as the recited
first and second databases. None of these recited elements are recited in a
manner to indicate one is necessarily respectively different from the other.

1 In accordance with the Examiner’s Advisory Actions mailed on January
23, 2007, and March 30, 2007, the Examiner’s objections to various claims,
an outstanding rejection of certain claims under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, as well as an outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of
claim 15 have been obviated by Appellant’s submissions.
3
Appeal 2008-0687
Application 10/104,851

The Examiner’s positions in the Answer and our understanding of Goldberg
make it clear that the reference teaches a standard query language such as
Structured Query Language (SQL) which is considered by the art to be a
platform independent query-based language.
It is understood that a basic aim of the disclosed invention is to be
able to reuse a given platform independent query in such a manner as to
generate a number of platform-specific query objects. Stated otherwise, a
plurality of platform-specific query objects may be generated according to
Appellants’ methodology from the same platform independent query. Even
beginning in the discussion at columns 1 and 2 of Goldberg, it appears that
the same aim has been known in the art utilizing at least the so-called
two-tiered and three-tiered models. According to the discussion beginning
at column 2, it was known in the art to utilize generic-types of queries and
translate them into specific platform-specific query objects. To do this,
platform specifications as well as the mapping requirements for them were
known in the art. The database schema access object 300 in figure 3 is
utilized by the query object generator tool 400 in figures 4 and 6 to generate
a specific query object 408 for a specific database. Thus, Goldberg teaches
the essential concepts of the disclosed and claimed invention.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting all
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.

4
Appeal 2008-0687
Application 10/104,851

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

AFFIRMED

pgc

OSHA LIANG L.L.P./SUN
1221 MCKINNEY, SUITE 2800
HOUSTON TX 77010
5