Ex Parte Gutsche

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 6, 2010

10755699 (B.P.A.I. May. 6, 2010)

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