Ex Parte Hildreth

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 25, 2003

09410531 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 25, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JAMES DEAN HILDRETH
____________
Appeal No. 2002-0561
Application No. 09/410,531
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through
36.
The disclosed invention relates to a system and method for
performing data mining applications in which the data retrieved
from a relational database is reduced in bulk by reducing the
number of rows and columns in the data.
Appeal No. 2002-0561
Application No. 09/410,531
2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads
as follows:
1. A system for performing data mining applications,
comprising:
(a) a computer having one or more data storage devices
connected thereto;
(b) a relational database management system, executed by the
computer, for managing a relational database stored on the data
storage devices; and
(c) an analytic algorithm for clustering performed by the
computer, wherein the analytic algorithm for clustering includes
SQL statements performed by the relational database management
system for reducing data retrieved from the relational database in
bulk by reducing the number of columns or rows in the data, the
analytic algorithm for clustering includes programmatic iteration
for operating on the reduced data to find clusters therein, and the
analytic algorithm for clustering creates at least one analytic
model within an analytic logical data model from the reduced data.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
McElhiney 5,710,915 Jan. 20, 1998
Claims 1 through 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over McElhiney.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number 8), the
briefs (paper numbers 11 and 14) and the answer (paper number 13)
for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2002-0561
Application No. 09/410,531
3
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 36.
Appellant has not challenged the examiner’s findings (final
rejection, page 2) that McElhiney discloses “a computer having one
or more data storage devices connected thereto,” and “a relational
database management system, executed by the computer, for managing
a relational database stored on the data storage devices.” The
examiner acknowledges (final rejection, page 3) that “McElhiney
does not explicitly teach reducing data retrieved from the
relational database in bulk by reducing the number of columns or
rows in the data.” The examiner believes, however, that “since
McElhiney teaches when search table exceeds a predetermined value,
it is split into subtables, replacing one partition with two
smaller ones [col. 9, lines 1-7], it can can be understood that the
columns and rows in the data from the search table are split up
accordingly.” (final rejection, page 3). The examiner then reaches
the conclusion (final rejection, page 3) that “[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the Data Processing art at the
time of the invention to add this feature to the system of
McElhiney as an efficient means to increase the processing time.”
Appeal No. 2002-0561
Application No. 09/410,531
4
Appellant argues (brief, page 4) that “clustering records
together in separate sub-tables for parallel scans, however, is not
the same as reducing the data in bulk by reducing the number of
columns or rows in the data, and then operating on the reduced data
to find clusters therein.”
We agree with appellant’s argument. Nothing in the record
supports the examiner’s conclusion that splitting the search tables
in McElhiney would have led the skilled artisan to the disclosed
and claimed reduction of data in the relational database by
“reducing the number of columns or rows in the data.” According to
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002), the examiner’s conclusory statements in the rejection must
be supported by evidence of record. To date, the examiner has not
provided any evidence to support the conclusion reached in the
rejection. As a result thereof, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 through 36 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-0561
Application No. 09/410,531
5
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/lp
Appeal No. 2002-0561
Application No. 09/410,531
6
JAMES M. STOVER
NCR CORPORATION
1700 SOUTH PATTERSON BLVD. WHQ4
DAYTON, OH 45479