Ex Parte Karimisetty et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2013

10731604 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte SRIKANTH KARIMISETTY, SRINIVASULU PURI,
CHARANJEET SINGH, RAVINDRA AKELLA,
and SAVITA DURGADA
____________

Appeal 2010-008876
Application 10/731,604
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, HUNG H. BUI, and BARBARA A.
PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-17, 19 and 201. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Claims 4, 13 and 18 have been cancelled and are not on appeal.

Appeal 2010-008876
Application 10/731,604

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for searching
unstructured data stored in a database. (Spec. ¶ 12, Abstract).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
is representative of the subject matter on appeal and recites:
1. A method of searching unstructured data stored in a
database, the method comprising:
storing unstructured data in a column of a database table
in character large object (CLOB) format;
generating a first graphical user interface and displaying
the first graphical user interface on a display device, the first
graphical user interface configured to enable users to designate
elements in the unstructured data as query elements;
receiving user input via the first graphical user interface
identifying one or more elements in the unstructured data stored
in CLOB format as query elements;
generating a plurality of database tables representing an
intermediate index between each query element and at least one
of the one or more elements identified as query elements in the
unstructured data stored in CLOB format;
generating one or more queries on the unstructured data
stored in CLOB format using the query elements;
translating a query element associated with a query on
the unstructured data based on the plurality of tables to a
corresponding element in the unstructured data stored in CLOB
format; and
obtaining information from the unstructured data stored
in CLOB format for the corresponding element.

Appeal 2010-008876
Application 10/731,604

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bertino et al. (Integrating XML and
Databases, IEEE Internet Computing, Jul.-Aug. 2001, at 84-88; “Bertino”)
in view of Pal et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0091188
A1, Apr. 28, 2005; “Pal”) and B. Adelberg (NoDoSE—a tool for semi-
automatically extracting semistructured data from text documents,
Proceedings of 1998 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on
Management of Data, 283-294 (1998); “Adelberg”). (Answer 4-8).2
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Bertino in view of Pal, Adelberg and Arora et al. (U.S.
Patent No. 7,346,598 B2, Mar. 18, 2008; “Arora”). (Answer 9-16).
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bertino in view of Pal, Adelberg and Campbell et al. (U.S. Patent No.
6,856,970 B1, Feb. 15, 2005; “Campbell”). (Answer 16-17).

ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 10 through 14 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in
error.3 These arguments present us with the issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding that Adelberg teaches “the first
graphical user interface configured to enable users to designate
elements in the unstructured data as query elements” of claim 1;

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
April 12, 2010.
3 Throughout this opinion were refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief of
December 21, 2009.
Appeal 2010-008876
Application 10/731,604

4
b) Did the Examiner err in finding that Adelberg teaches “receiving
user input via the first graphical user interface identifying one or
more elements in the unstructured data stored in CLOB format as
query elements” of claim 1?
c) Did the Examiner err in finding that a skilled artisan would be
motivated to combine the teachings of Bertino, Pal and Adelberg?

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bertino, Pal and Adelberg
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusion. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.

(a) Did the Examiner err in finding that Adelberg teaches “the first
graphical user interface configured to enable users to designate
elements in the unstructured data as query elements” of claim 1?
Appellants acknowledge that Adelberg discloses a tool having a GUI
that enables a user to create a structure for otherwise unstructured data but
argue that this disclosure is insufficient because the GUI does not enable a
user to designate data as query elements. (Appeal Br. 12).
Appeal 2010-008876
Application 10/731,604

5
Thus, Adelberg merely discloses a tool having a GUI that
enables a user to create a structure for otherwise unstructured
data using the GUI. However, Adelberg fails to disclose or
suggest designating one or more of the newly created structural
elements as query elements as recited in claim 1.
(Appeal Br. 12). However, Appellants acknowledge, “[a]s can be see[n] in
FIG. 4 of Adelberg, the GUI allows the user to add/delete nodes or elements
in a data model and indicate to which portion of raw data an element refers
to provide such mappings.” (Appeal Br. 12).
We agree with the detailed findings provided by the Examiner
showing that this element of claim 1 is taught by Adelberg. (Answer 7, 18-
19). For example, regarding the designation of newly created structural
elements as query elements, as correctly noted by the Examiner, “the GUI in
Adelberg is used to define the nodes or elements which are then loaded into
the DBMS.” (Answer 19). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments and agree with the Examiner that this limitation is
disclosed by Adelberg.

(b) Did the Examiner err in finding that Adelberg teaches “receiving
user input via the first graphical user interface identifying one or
more elements in the unstructured data stored in CLOB format as
query elements” of claim 1?
Appellants contend that “Adelberg stops short of any disclosure or
suggestion of a GUI that enables users to identify ‘one or more elements in
the unstructured data stored in CLOB format as query elements’ as recited in
claim 1.” (App. Br. 14). However, Appellants accept that Adelberg
discloses that decomposed portions of the unstructured data “could then be
extracted as disclosed in section 2.3 on page 6 of Adelberg and stored as
Appeal 2010-008876
Application 10/731,604

6
traditionally expected in their respective columns of database tables to be
‘within the reach of general query tools.’” (Appeal Br. 13).
We agree with the detailed findings provided by the Examiner
showing that this element of claim 1 is taught by Adelberg. (Answer 7, 18-
19). For example, as correctly explained by the Examiner, Adelberg
discloses receiving user input as recited by claim 1 and “that structure which
is built by the user during the decomposition process is used to pull the text
from the user-selected portions of the document into a database management
system such as a relational database.” (Answer 18-19). Accordingly, we are
not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the Examiner that
this limitation is disclosed by Adelberg.

(c) Did the Examiner err in finding that a skilled artisan would be
motivated to combine the teachings of Bertino, Pal and Adelberg?
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s line of reasoning regarding
obviousness “is insufficiently convincing to establish that the tool in
Adelberg is applicable as alleged to ‘identifying one or more elements in the
unstructured data stored in CLOB format as query elements’ as recited in
claim 1.” (Appeal Br. 13-14). However, Appellants have not provided
sufficient analysis or rationale to persuade us that Adelberg is not applicable.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the proposed combination
“removes” the limitation of “storing unstructured data in a column of a
database table in character large object (CLOB) format” from claim 1.
(Reply Br. 7). Appellants further argue:
The combination with Adelberg fails to disclose or suggest
designating elements of unstructured data stored in CLOB
format as query elements as recited in claim 1 because the
Appeal 2010-008876
Application 10/731,604

7
suggested output of Adelberg from the GUI is to be used before
storing the data in a database rather than on data already stored
in CLOB format as recited.
(Reply Br. 7).
The Examiner correctly pointed to Bertino for disclosing “storing
unstructured data in a column of a database table in character large object
(CLOB format).” (Answer 5). The Examiner has articulated a reason with
rationale underpinning (Answer 7) and Appellants have not presented
sufficient analysis or argument to persuade us of error. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

The rejection of claims 2-3, 5-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable
With respect to the rejection of claims 2-3, 5-12, 14-17, 19 and 20,
Appellants allow those claims to fall with claim 1 by relying on the same
reasons presented for the patentability of claim 1. (App. Br. 14-15).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and stated conclusions
with respect to the remaining claims and sustain the rejection.

CONCLUSION
Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore,
we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-3, 5-
12, 14-17, 19 and 20 falling therewith.

DECISION
Appeal 2010-008876
Application 10/731,604

8
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-17, 19 and
20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb