Ex Parte GutscheDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 6, 201010755699 (B.P.A.I. May. 6, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte RALF GUTSCHE __________ Appeal 2008-004628 Application 10/755,699 Technology Center 2100 __________ Decided: May 6, 2010 __________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, STEPHEN C. SIU, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2008-004628 Application 10/755,699 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention The disclosed invention relates generally to a data pipeline architecture (Spec. 2). Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A data pipeline architecture, comprising: at least one data input; a data output; a data path between the input and output; and plural modules in series with each other to sequentially process data, at least one of which accesses an output of itself and based thereon executes a data processing task. 1 The Appeal Brief and Examiner’s Answer indicate that claims 1-22 are pending but do not indicate that claim 23 is pending. However, we find no indication in the prosecution history that claim 23 has been formally cancelled. Therefore, we assume that claim 23 remains pending in the application and is subject to the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Tate. Appeal 2008-004628 Application 10/755,699 3 The Reference The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence in support of the rejections: Tate US 6,549,910 B1 Apr. 15, 2003 The Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Tate.2 ISSUE 1 Appellant asserts that “Tate fails to provide for serial or sequential modules” (Reply Br. 1). Did the Examiner err in finding that Tate discloses plural modules in series with each other to sequentially process data? ISSUE 2 Appellant asserts that Tate fails to disclose “at least one of the modules in the series accesses an output of itself” (App. Br. 5). Did the Examiner err in finding that Tate discloses a module that accesses an output of itself? 2 Id. Appeal 2008-004628 Application 10/755,699 4 ISSUE 3 Appellant asserts that Tate discloses “[n]othing at all about mapping anything to a data store” (App. Br. 5) or an “input interface to map data elements from a data store to the pipeline architecture” (App. Br. 6). Did the Examiner err in finding that Tate discloses mapping data elements from a pipeline architecture to a data store and an input interface that maps data elements from a data store to the pipeline architecture? ISSUE 4 Appellant asserts that Tate fails disclose “the definition of data exchange” (App. Br. 7). Did the Examiner err in finding that Tate discloses defining data exchange between the processing modules? ISSUE 5 Appellant asserts that Tate fails disclose “selecting which data elements to process” (App. Br. 7). Did the Examiner err in finding that Tate discloses selecting which data elements to operate on? FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Appeal 2008-004628 Application 10/755,699 5 1. Regarding the state of the prior art, the Specification discloses that a module “executes a particular operation or sequence of operations on data” (Spec. 1), that “a data pipeline is a collection of software modules,” that the “modules typically are arranged in series” (Spec. 1) and that “most if not all pipelines require the modules to work in series” (Spec. 2). 2. Tate discloses “performing data mining applications” (Abstract) using “Scalable Data Mining Functions 202 . . . to facilitate analytic operations within the RDBMS 114, which process data collections stored in the database 116 and produce results that also are stored in the database 116” (col. 7, ll. 11-15). 3. Tate discloses at least one operation in which operations are “performed automatically in a series of steps, each building on the other” (col. 8, ll. 13-14). 4. Tate discloses that a “query makes three passes of the data in the relational database 116, wherein each pass uses information gathered in a previous pass” (col. 10, ll. 42-44). 5. Tate discloses that data processing may be accomplished by “Analytic Algorithms 206 [that] may . . . interface [with] the Analytic API 204 to invoke one or more of the Scalable Data Mining Functions 202, which are executed by the RDBMS 114” (col. 6, ll. 11-14). 6. Tate discloses that an “Analytic LDM 200 . . . provides logical entity and attribute definitions for advanced analytic processing” (col. 9, Appeal 2008-004628 Application 10/755,699 6 ll. 6-9) that “comprise metadata that define the characteristics of data stored in the relational database 116, as well as . . . determines how the RDBMS 114 performs the advanced analytic processing” (col. 9, ll. 12-15). PRINCIPLES OF LAW 35 U.S.C. § 102 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). ANALYSIS Issue 1 Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal with respect to issue 1 on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We construe the term “module” broadly but reasonably and in light of the Specification to include any operation or series of operations on data (Spec. 1; FF 1). Since Tate discloses executing operations or a series of operations to accomplish data mining (FF 2) and since the operations or series of operations of Tate are performed in series (FF 3), we agree with the Examiner that Tate discloses a series of modules (or operations) that sequentially process data. Appeal 2008-004628 Application 10/755,699 7 In addition, in discussing the state of the prior art, the Specification discloses that data pipelines contain software modules arranged in series and even require the modules to be arranged in series (FF 1). As set forth above, Tate discloses a series of “modules” (i.e., operations or series of operations) in a pipeline – a pipeline being a “collection of software modules” (FF 1). Since, according to Appellant’s disclosure as admitted prior art, modules are required to be arranged in series in a data pipeline, we find further support for the Examiner’s finding that the modules (operations) of the data pipeline of Tate are arranged in series. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no evidence that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, or claims 2-23, which fall therewith, with respect to issue 1. Issue 2 Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal with respect to issue 2 on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). As set forth above, Tate discloses processing data (via a query) in which data processing in one data processing pass utilizes the output of a previous data processing pass. We discern no other method of a module outputting data and utilizing the output data in a subsequent pass other than the module accessing its own output, as recited in claim 1, since the data output from the module to be used as input to the same module in a subsequent pass would not be obtained by the module in order to be used in Appeal 2008-004628 Application 10/755,699 8 a subsequent pass if not first accessed. Nor has Appellant indicated how a module such as the module disclosed by Tate could utilize its own output in a subsequent pass without first “accessing” the output. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no evidence that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, or claims 2-8, which fall therewith, with respect to issue 2. Issue 3 As set forth above, Tate discloses data mining functions that access data located at specific locations within a data storage for processing and, after processing the data, generating an output and storing the output at specific locations in memory (FF 2) via an interface, such as an Application Programming Interface (API) (FF 6). Since Tate discloses a series of operations (or modules) accessing data at specific locations in a database and storing output results at specified locations of a database and since under a broad but reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, “mapping” data includes, for example, locating data at specified locations, we agree with the Examiner that Tate discloses both mapping data elements from a data store to the modules (i.e., “pipeline architecture”) and vice versa. Appellant argues that Tate “is devoid of any mention of [an] input interface” (Reply Br. 3) but fails to identify a distinction between any of the “interfaces” (e.g., API) of Tate and the claimed “interface.” For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no evidence that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 5, or 16-22 with respect to issue 3. Appeal 2008-004628 Application 10/755,699 9 Issue 4 Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal with respect to issue 4 on the basis of claim 7 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). As set forth above, Tate discloses data mining functions and operations (FF 2) in which metadata is used that define how the processing is to be accomplished (FF 6). Each of the “operations” of Tate processes data for each subsequent operation in performing data mining functions. If the metadata of Tate defines how such processing is accomplished, then the metadata also defines the data exchange from one module or operation to the next since the processing involves data exchanging from one operation to the next. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Tate’s “metadata,” by defining and determining how the processing is accomplished by the “modules” (i.e., operations or series of operations), defines the data exchange between the “modules” (or different operations involved in the data mining functions of Tate). Appellant argues that Tate “is something less than a resounding teaching of a particularly claimed interface defining data exchange” (Reply Br. 3) but fails to provide a specific rationale in support of this statement. Appellant has provided no additional arguments in support of claim 23. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no evidence that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7, and of claim 23, which falls therewith, with respect to issue 4. Appeal 2008-004628 Application 10/755,699 10 Issue 5 As set forth above, Tate discloses “modules” or operations that process data. Since the operations of Tate process data and if the data is not first selected for processing, then the data could not be processed (not having been identified for processing), we agree with the Examiner that Tate discloses selecting the data to “operate on.” While Appellant argues generally that Tate fails to disclose selecting data to operate on, Appellant fails to provide specific details as to how Tate, while discloses processing data through a series of operations or modules, supposedly fails to disclose selecting the data for processing. Since we independently find no discernible difference between Tate’s “selection” of data for processing with the requirement that data be selected for processing of claim 8 and Appellant has failed to indicate any difference, we cannot agree with Appellant’s contention. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no evidence that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 with respect to issue 5. CONCLUSION OF LAW Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in: 1. finding that Tate discloses plural modules in series with each other to sequentially process data (issue 1), Appeal 2008-004628 Application 10/755,699 11 2. finding that Tate discloses a module that accesses an output of itself (issue 2), 3. finding that Tate discloses mapping data elements from a pipeline architecture to a data store and an input interface that maps data elements from a data store to the pipeline architecture (issue 3), 4. finding that Tate discloses defining data exchange between the processing modules (issue 4), and 5. finding that Tate discloses selecting which data elements to operate on (issue 5). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. 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 JOHN L ROGITZ ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES SUITE 3120 750 B STREET SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation