Ex Parte Gopalakrishnan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2016

12173835 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/173,835 07/16/2008
51121 7590
IPHORIZONS PLLC
C/O Landon IP
1725 Jamieson A venue
Alexandria, VA 22314
05/24/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Prasanth Gopalakrishnan
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.
ORCL-089/0ID-2007-210-01 7555
EXAMINER
CONYERS, DAW AUNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2016 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):
lfnt2000@yahoo.com
oracle@iphorizons.com
intercomm@iphorizons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRASANTH GOP ALAKRISHNAN
Appeal2014-006836
Application 12/173,835
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4--9, 11-14, and 16-18, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to enterprise data management. See
generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computing system comprising:
a database server to store data organized according to a
plurality of object types and a plurality of relationship types,
Appeal2014-006836
Application 12/173,835
wherein each of said relationship types is designed to specify
relationship between a pair of object types contained in said
plurality of object types;
a server system to store a plurality of object instances in
said database server, each of said plurality of object instances
being one of said plurality of object types,
wherein pairs of object instances are related by a
relationship type corresponding to the object types of the pair to
form a plurality of relationships,
wherein each of said plurality of object instances and the
corresponding ones of said plurality of relationships are created
and stored in said database server in response to processing
corresponding transactions; and
a tag tool operable to:
maintain a tag data containing a plurality of tags,
said tag tool to add corresponding set of tags to said
plurality of tags in response to processing each transaction,
each tag being in the form of text identifying object
instances and relationships created for processing a related
subset of transactions, wherein each tag is stored
associated with a corresponding subset of said plurality of
relationships created for processing a corresponding
related subset of transactions;
receive a search request containing a first object
instance, a second object instance and a search tag,
wherein said search tag is in the form of a first text;
determine a sequence of ordered pairs of object
instances, wherein each ordered pair of object instances
has a corresponding one of a sequence of relationships,
wherein each of said sequence of relationships has an
associated tag containing said first text representing said
search tag,
each ordered pair of object instances containing a
first entry and a second entry, the first entry of a first
ordered pair of said sequence of ordered pairs equaling
said first object instance, the second entry of a last ordered
pair of said sequence of ordered pairs equaling said second
object instance, the first entry of each of said sequence of
2
Appeal2014-006836
Application 12/173,835
ordered pairs equaling the second entry of a previous
ordered pair in said sequence of ordered pairs; and
send said sequence of ordered pairs of object
instances and said sequence of relationships as a response
to said search request, such that a user can be displayed a
manner in which said first object instance is related to said
second object instance in the context of a desired subset of
transactions identified by said search tag.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Craft (US 2002/0091696 Al; publ. July 11, 2002),
Dockter (US 6,591,276 Bl; iss. July 8, 2003), and Armstrong (US
2004/0230328 Al; publ. Nov. 18, 2004).
Claims 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Craft, Dockter, Armstrong, and Frieden (US
2008/0016072 Al; publ. Jan. 17, 2008).
Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Craft, Dockter, Armstrong, and Borland, StarTeam®
Extensions User's Guide, 1-262 (2003).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's
rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments, and the evidence
of record. We concur with Appellant's conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding Craft, Dockter, and Armstrong collectively teach
the first entry of a first ordered pair of said sequence of ordered
pairs equaling said first object instance, the second entry of a last
ordered pair of said sequence of ordered pairs equaling said
second object instance, the first entry of each of said sequence of
3
Appeal2014-006836
Application 12/173,835
ordered pairs equaling the second entry of a previous ordered
pair in said sequence of ordered pairs,
as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). 1 See App. Br. 12-13;
Reply Br. 1-2.
The Examiner finds:
Armstrong discloses each ordered pair of object instances
containing a first entry and a second entry (figure 7 and figure
17, each ordered pair (i.e., the row of objects) can have multiple
entries like in figure 7. For instance, the examiner will use the
Test Julie two rows, in figure 7, as a first entry and second entry
in the system. A user could search test Julie, in figure 17, to
display all the order pair of object instances stored in the
database system . ... the first entry of a first ordered pair of said
sequence of ordered pairs equaling said first object instance
(figure 7 and figure 17, the AMS tag: Test Julie row (i.e., object
instance) of sequence object pairs has a first and second entry)[.]
In addition, Armstrong discloses the second entry of a last
ordered pair of said sequence of ordered pairs equaling said
second instance (figure 7 and figure 17, the AMS tag: Test Julie
row (i.e., object instance) of sequence object pairs has a first and
second entry), the first entry of each of said sequence of ordered
pairs equaling the second entry of a previous ordered pair in said
sequence of ordered pairs (figure 7 and figure 17, the AMS tag:
Test Julie row (i.e., object instance) of sequence object pairs has
a first and second entry. The system is able to locate a second
entry at a previous time (i.e., the first instance (the march 2,
2003 row) tag equals the second instance (February 10, 2003
row)) that equals the first entry by tag like in figure 10 (i.e.,
S ilambu tags)) [.]
Ans. 7 (emphases added); see also Final Act. 8.
1 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
4
Appeal2014-006836
Application 12/173,835
The Examiner's mapping is difficult to understand. In particular, the
Examiner cites the same explanation: "figure 7 and figure 17, the AMS tag:
Test Julie row (i.e., object instance) of sequence object pairs has a first and
second entry" for teaching each of the following claim limitations: (i) the
first entry of a first ordered pair of said sequence of ordered pairs equaling
said first object instance, (ii) the second entry of a last ordered pair of said
sequence of ordered pairs equaling said second object instance, and (iii) the
first entry of each of said sequence of ordered pairs equaling the second
entry of a previous ordered pair in said sequence of ordered pairs. The
Examiner does not adequately explain, and we do not see, how that same
explanation teaches "the first entry of each of said sequence of ordered pairs
equaling the second entry of a previous ordered pair in said sequence of
ordered pairs," as required by the claim. See Ans. 7. The Examiner also
cites Armstrong's Figure 10 (Ans. 7), but does not adequately explain how
that figure teaches the disputed claim limitation.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support
the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's
rejections of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims 4--8.
Each of independent claims 9 and 14 recites a claim limitation that is
substantively the same as the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 9,
14. Therefore, for similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of independent claims 9 and 14, and corresponding dependent
claims 11-13 and 16-18.
5
Appeal2014-006836
Application 12/173,835
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--9, 11-14,
and 16-18.
REVERSED
6