Ex Parte Lee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 20, 2009

09998908 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHI-CHENG LEE, ANDY M. TSANG, and THOMAS B.
REMAHL
____________________

Appeal 2008-001027
Application 09/998,9081
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Decided: August 20, 2009
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAY P. LUCAS, and ST. JOHN
COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed November 30, 2001. Appellants claim the benefit under
35 U.S.C. § 119 of provisional application 60/258,087, filed 12/22/2000 and
60/285,524, filed 04/20/2001. The real party in interest is Oracle
International Corporation of Redwood Shores, California.
Appeal 2008-001027
Application 09/998,908
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 1-13, 16-19, 21-27,
35-37, 40, 42-45, and 50-57 under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134. Claims 14,
15, 20, 28-34, 38, 39, 41, and 46-49 are cancelled. The Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of servicing data requests to
a plurality of data stores, each with a dedicated agent. In the words of
Appellants:
The present invention, roughly described, pertains to
technology for supporting multiple data stores. The set of data
stores can be of a uniform type, or the various data stores can be
different types (e.g. LDAP, SQL, etc.). One implementation of
the disclosed technology is with an Identity System. Another
implementation is with an integrated Identity System and
Access System. Various embodiments of the present invention
utilize different means to separate the business logic of a
system from the data access logic so that different types of data
stores can be used without changing the business logic.
One embodiment of the present invention includes
receiving a request at an integrated access system and identity
system, which supports a plurality of data stores. The system
accesses one or more of the data stores in response to the
request and reports back to the requester or another entity (or
process) based on the step of accessing.
Another embodiment of the present invention includes
receiving a request to access one or more of a plurality of data
stores and determining which data stores can service the
request. Each data store is associated with a separate agent. The
system accesses the data stores that can service the request by
communicating with the associated agents. A different
embodiment of the present invention includes receiving
a request, creating a proxy having knowledge of which data
stores can service the request, and facilitating performance of
the request using the proxy.

(Spec., p. 2, l. 21 to p. 3, l. 9)
2
Appeal 2008-001027
Application 09/998,908

Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of supporting multiple data stores for an
integrated access system and identity system, comprising the
steps of:

receiving a request at said integrated access system
and identity system, said integrated access system and identity
system supporting a plurality of data stores, each data store
having a dedicated agent for interacting with the data store and
a profile mapping one-to-one with the dedicated agent and
representing configuration information for the data store;

determining based on the profiles which data
stores can service said request;

creating a temporary proxy with one or more
pointers to agents associated with said data stores that can
service said request;

accessing data stores that can service said request
via the agent for the one or more data stores from the temporary
proxy;

reporting via the temporary proxy information
based on said step of accessing; and

terminating the temporary proxy.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bull 5,901,287 May 04, 1999
Hassett 6,173,311 B1 Jan. 09, 2001
Brown 6,678,733 Jan. 13, 2004
Krapf 6,901,588 B1 May 31, 2005
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
3
Appeal 2008-001027
Application 09/998,908

R1: Claims 1-4, 7-13, 16-19, 21-27, 35-37, 40, 42-45, and 50-57 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Hassett and Bull in
view of Krapf.
R2: Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being
obvious over Hassett and Bull in view of Brown.

Groups of Claims:
The claims will be discussed in the order of the arguments.

Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not rendered
obvious by Hassett and Bull in view of Krapf or Brown for failure of the
references to teach certain claimed limitations. The Examiner contends that
each of the claims is properly rejected.
We reverse the rejections.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue turns on whether
the references jointly teach data stores with individual agents as claimed and
the creation of a temporary proxy with pointers to agents as claimed.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Appellants have invented a method and apparatus for controlling and
operating multiple data stores wherein each data store has a separate
agent responsible for all interactions with the data store. (Spec. 18, l. 12).
4
Appeal 2008-001027
Application 09/998,908
Requests are serviced by the database manager creating a separate
temporary database proxy for each request for data; the proxy being a
dynamic object that accesses the agent for the data store and performs the
search and retrieval processes associated with the request. (Spec. 18, ll.
22 to 28; Fig. 3).
2. Hassett teaches a computer based database system with a caching proxy
server that stores oft-accessed web pages in a local cache. (Col. 3, l. 5).
Hassett teaches the use of agents, including intelligent agents, which
store GET requests from client computers on the caching proxy server.
(Col. 7, l. 15). Agents of various types are also described. (Col. 7, ll. 42-
64).
3. In a computer network used for accessing data on the Internet, Bull
teaches software text agents associated with a user. The agents are
simply words, or combinations of words, which form a word-based
search pattern. (Col. 6, l. 46). Agents can be subject-oriented, for
example related to searching cars. (Col. 6, l. 50).
4. Krapf translates code from one programming language to another, such
as Java to C++. (Col. 2, l. 10). Constructs or classes of instructions that
exist in one language but not in the other are simulated by proxy classes.
(Col. 7, l. 33; col. 15, l. 5).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
5
Appeal 2008-001027
Application 09/998,908
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).

“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

“It is common sense that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be
able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 402 (2007).

ANALYSIS
From our review of the administrative record, we find that the
Examiner has proposed a prima facie case for the rejections of Appellants’
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The prima facie case is presented on pages 3
to 14 of the Examiner’s Answer. In opposition, Appellants present a number
of arguments.
Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 1 to 4, 7 to 13, 16 to 19, 21 to 27, 35 to 37,
40, 42 to 45, and 50 to 57
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) [R1]
and claims 5 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)[R2]

Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting the noted
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for four reasons.
6
Appeal 2008-001027
Application 09/998,908
Appellants first contend that the references fail to teach or suggest
multiple data stores, each having an agent and a profile representing
configuration information for the data store. (Brief 9, middle). The
Examiner points to Bull, especially at column 14, lines. 24 to 25. (Ans. 15,
top). We have reviewed the Bull reference at this point, and indeed the
entire patent, and fail to find the claimed data stores with dedicated agents
and the recited profile. The agents in Bull are simply text strings to be
applied in a text search and contain no configuration information for the data
store. (See col. 6, l. 45) (FF 3). We find that neither Hassett nor Krapf
supplies that deficiency. We thus agree with Appellants on this point.
Appellants further contend that the references do not teach or suggest
that the data stores and profile are mapped one-to-one with the dedicated
agent. (Brief 9, middle). Though we find that in Bull there may be
customization of the text agents toward a certain “class of indexed
information about new cars” for car-related searches (col. 6, l. 50) (FF 3),
the required one-to-one mapping of data stores to dedicated agents as
claimed is not shown in the Bull reference, or the others. We thus agree
with Appellants on this point.
Appellants further contend that the references do not teach or suggest
creating a temporary proxy with one or more pointers to agents associated
with data stores as claimed. (Brief 9, middle). Though there is a teaching of
temporary proxies in Krapf, as mentioned by the Examiner (col. 18, l. 10 et
seq.), the temporary proxies therein do not contain the pointers to agents as
recited in the claims. The Bull and Hassett references likewise do not
contain this teaching. We thus agree with Appellants on this point also.

7
Appeal 2008-001027
Application 09/998,908
As claims 5 and 6 are rejected using the same reasoning as their
independent representative claim 1, we find that the rejection [R2] of those
claims is likewise insufficiently supported and in error.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-13, 16-19, 21-27, 35-37, 40, 42-45,
and 50-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 [R1, R2].

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections R1 and R2 of claims 1-13, 16-19, 21-27,
35-37, 40, 42-45, and 50-57 are reversed.

REVERSED

peb

TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP
TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER
8TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3834
8