Ex Parte Jain et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 27, 2010

10648600 (B.P.A.I. May. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NAMIT JAIN,
NIPUN AGARWAL,
and RAVI MURTHY
____________

Appeal 2009-005195
Application 10/648,600
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: May 28, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOSEPH L. DIXON, and
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-26, which are all the claims in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-005195
Application 10/648,600

2

Representative Claims
1. A method of storing data into a database, the
method comprising:
a client application receiving data;
determining one or more routines that are associated with
a type of said data, wherein said one or more routines are
implemented by a program that is external to both said client
application and a database server that manages said database;
invoking said one or more routines;
in response to said one or more routines being invoked,
said program performing steps comprising:
determining one or more first values that are
specified in said data, wherein said one or more first
values correspond to one or more attributes of said type;
and
determining one or more second values that
correspond to one or more hidden columns of one or
more tables in said database;
generating, based on said one or more first values and
said one or more second values, a data stream that conforms to
a format of data blocks of said database; and
writing said data into one or more data blocks in said
database.

Appeal 2009-005195
Application 10/648,600

3
12. A method of storing data into a database, the
method comprising:
a client application receiving data that conforms to a first
type definition that indicates two or more first attributes,
wherein at least one of said two or more first attributes is of a
type that is defined by a second type definition that indicates
two or more second attributes;
determining one or more first routines that are associated
with said first type definition, wherein said one or more first
routines are external to both said client application and a
database server that manages said database;
calling said one or more first routines;
in response to one or more calls to said one or more first
routines:
creating a first data structure with two or more first
elements that correspond to said two or more first
attributes; and
populating said two or more first elements with
two or more first values that are specified in said data,
wherein said two or more first values correspond to said
two or more first attributes;
calling one or more second routines that are associated
with said second type definition;
in response to one or more calls to said one or more
second routines
Appeal 2009-005195
Application 10/648,600

4
creating a second data structure with two or more
second elements that correspond to said two or more
second attributes; and
populating said two or more second elements with
two or more second values that are specified in said data,
wherein said two or more second values correspond to
said two or more second attributes;
generating, based on said first data structure and said
second data structure, a data stream that conforms to a format of
data blocks of said database; and
writing said data into one or more data blocks in said
database.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Skinner (U.S. 6,085,198).

ISSUES
(1) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Skinner discloses hidden columns as recited in claim 1?
(2) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Skinner discloses “a client application receiving data that conforms to a first
type definition that indicates two or more first attributes, wherein at least one
of said two or more first attributes is of a type that is defined by a second
type definition that indicates two or more second attributes” as recited in
claim 12?
Appeal 2009-005195
Application 10/648,600

5

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The allocation of burdens requires that the USPTO produce the factual
basis for its rejection of an application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967)). The one who bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability is the Examiner. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-11 and 14-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The Examiner reads the “hidden columns” of claim 1 on Skinner at
column 20, lines 24 through 27 of the reference. Ans. 4. Skinner at the
indicated text describes a MetaMember 502 (Fig. 5A) that comprises an
integer data structure containing “myPrivateFlag,” which describes the
private and protected state of the class element described by MetaMember
502.
According to the Examiner, Appellants’ Specification at paragraph
[0040] indicates that the hidden status of a column is relative to the user’s
point of view. The Examiner finds that Skinner describes private data that is
not displayed to a user lacking permission to access the private data. The
Examiner concludes that, from the user’s point of view, “this is
indistinguishable from hiding the columns at the database level.” Ans. 10.
However, a hidden column is a column storing values that are not
visible to a user when the database table that contains the hidden columns is
queried. Spec. ¶ [0040]. The Specification further distinguishes hidden
Appeal 2009-005195
Application 10/648,600

6
columns from user-visible columns. Id., ¶ [0048]. The Examiner has not
shown that Skinner describes a database with columns having values that are
not visible to a user when the database is queried, but only seems to
postulate that a user would not know the difference between values in
hidden columns and data for which the user lacks permission to access.
Moreover, the rejection fails to show how MetaMember 502 and an
integer data structure containing a flag that describes the private and
protected state of the class element described by the MetaMember might
anticipate the “hidden columns” of claim 1.
We find that the evidentiary basis for the rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Skinner is lacking. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection
of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Because claims 2-11 and 14-24
incorporate the limitations of claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claims 2-11 and 14-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Rejection of claims 12, 13, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claim 12 recites “a client application receiving data that conforms to a
first type definition that indicates two or more first attributes, wherein at
least one of said two or more first attributes is of a type that is defined by a
second type definition that indicates two or more second attributes.” The
Examiner points to material in the reference that is deemed to anticipate the
claimed subject matter (Ans. 7), but appears to interpret the claim 12
recitation as merely requiring that “one type is ‘indicated’ from another
type.” Id. at 11. The Examiner seems to analogize the claim 12 recitation to
a parent/child relationship. Id.
Appeal 2009-005195
Application 10/648,600

7
In any event, the material deemed to anticipate the above-quoted
recitation of claim 12 consists of an element from Figure 3, a step from
Figure 4, and text at column 16 that appears to describe metadata structures,
a schema, and extracting metadata for data classes from the schema. Ans. 7;
Skinner Fig. 3, element 305B, Fig. 4, step 400, col. 16, ll. 14-30 and 48-49.
The statement of the rejection does not specify what the “client application”
may be. The relied-upon text of Skinner does contain the word “attribute.”
“The metadata describes the elements of each data class in terms of, for
example, attribute and method names, parameters, data types, inter-class
relationships, etc.” Skinner col. 16, ll. 15-18 (emphasis added).
The Examiner has not provided an explanation sufficient to
demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Skinner to
describe “a client application receiving data that conforms to a first type
definition that indicates two or more first attributes, wherein at least one of
said two or more first attributes is of a type that is defined by a second type
definition that indicates two or more second attributes” as claimed.
We thus do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). Because claims 13, 25, and 26 incorporate the limitations of claim
12, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 13, 25, and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Skinner discloses hidden columns as recited in claim 1.
(2) Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Skinner discloses “a client application receiving data that conforms to a first
Appeal 2009-005195
Application 10/648,600

8
type definition that indicates two or more first attributes, wherein at least one
of said two or more first attributes is of a type that is defined by a second
type definition that indicates two or more second attributes” as recited in
claim 12.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Skinner is reversed.

REVERSED

msc

HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE
2055 GATEWAY PLACE
SUITE 550
SAN JOSE, CA 95110-1083