Ex Parte MackDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 31, 200409362530 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2004) Copy Citation 1 Application for patent filed July 28, 1999, entitled "Paired Keys for Data Structures." - 1 - The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 15 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte ROBERT MACK Appeal No. 2002-1767 Application 09/362,5301 ON BRIEF Before BARRETT, GROSS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-27. In the examiner's answer, pages 16-17, the examiner states that claims 2, 7, 10, and 13 are objected to, although the statements of the rejections have not Appeal No. 2002-1767 Application 09/362,530 - 2 - been modified. Appellant correctly notes that if claims 2, 7, 10, and 13 are allowable if rewritten, this means that claims 2, 4-8, and 10-14 would be allowable if rewritten. Thus, the appeal is limited to claims 1, 3, 9, and 15-27. We reverse. BACKGROUND The invention relates to computer database records. Appellant's invention is providing paired keys in two fields of a data record. The keys initially contain the same identification, where the identification uniquely identifies the record (i.e., the identification is a primary key). Thereafter, one of the keys may be changed to implement various functions ( see specification, p. 3). For example, in Fig. 14A, the "Business Party ID" and the "Original Business Party ID" are two fields of a record which initially contain the same identification. If one of the records is found to be a duplicate (as shown, "Joe Green" is the same as "Joseph Green"), the "Business Party ID" for one is changed to the "Business Party ID" of the other and the "Status" is changed from "Active" to "Duplicate." In this way, a history of the change is retained and, if necessary, the change can be reversed. Appeal No. 2002-1767 Application 09/362,530 - 3 - Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A computer-implemented method comprising the steps of creating a first field for a first reference data record and placing a first identification in the first field of the first reference data record; creating a second field for a first reference data record and placing the first identification in the second field of the first reference data record; and wherein the first identification uniquely identifies the first reference data record. The examiner relies on the following references: Vijaykumar 5,745,896 April 28, 1998 Beauchesne 6,128,626 October 3, 2000 (filed June 30, 1998) The statements of the rejections are modified to reflect the examiner's indication of allowable subject matter. Claims 1, 3, 15-17, 23, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Beauchesne. Claims 9, 18-22, and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beauchesne and Vijaykumar. We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 4) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 10) (pages referred to as "Br__") and reply brief (Paper No. 12) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of appellant's arguments thereagainst. Appeal No. 2002-1767 Application 09/362,530 - 4 - OPINION Appellant notes that "[t]he examiner calls the 'file key' of Beauchese [sic] a 'first identification'" (Br9). We agree with this interpretation of the examiner's rejection because the examiner relies on column 3, lines 51-60, for the "first field" with a "first identification" (EA3). Appellant argues that the "file key" of Beauchesne: (1) does not uniquely identify a reference data record; and (2) the identification under the "file key" of Beauchesne is not placed in two fields of a single data record (Br9-10; Br11). Appellant also argues that to the extent the examiner relies on Beauchesne's "pair of key values" in the advisory action, the pair of key values refers to "ON" and "OFF" fields which: (1) do not have the same value; and (2) do not uniquely identify a data record or a table entry (Br11). We are in full agreement with these arguments. Thus, we are puzzled why the examiner has maintained the rejection. We look to the examiner's response to the arguments in the examiner's answer. The examiner states that "appellants [sic] are interpreting the claims very narrow[ly] without considering the broad teachings of the references used in the rejection" (EA18). The examiner discusses the teachings of Beauchesne (at EA18-19), but fails to explain where it teaches a "first identification" stored in first and second fields of a first reference data record, Appeal No. 2002-1767 Application 09/362,530 - 5 - where the "first identification uniquely identifies the first reference data record." The examiner states (EA18): Beauchesne has shown (col. 2, lines 10-65, product table) that each index entry has a reference key and a component key wherein each of them uniquely identifying [sic, identifies] the record. It is important to note that claim 1 does not require that the first and second field be on the same record ("field for a first reference record"). The reference key and the component key described at column 2 clearly do not contain the same identification, so we do not know what point the examiner intends to make. We conclude that the examiner's interpretation of a "first field for a first reference data record" and a "second field for a first reference data record" in claim 1 as not needing to be fields on the same record is erroneous. Even if the examiner was correct, the examiner has not shown two fields for the same record having the same identification. Moreover, the examiner does not deal with the language of claims 15, 18, and 21. We find no way that Beauchesne can anticipate claims 1 and 15. Appellant's arguments in the reply brief (RBr2-3) are also persuasive. Although the names are similar, the "pair of key values" in Beauchesne (col. 4, line 9) does not anticipate appellant's "paired keys" (specification, p. 3, line 9). The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3, 15-17, 23, and 27 is reversed. Vijaykumar does not cure the deficiencies of Beauchesne with respect to independent claims 1 and 15. Independent claims 18 Appeal No. 2002-1767 Application 09/362,530 - 6 - and 21 contain similar limitations to those in claim 1 and Vijaykumar does not cure the deficiencies of Beauchesne with respect to those limitations. Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claims 9, 18-22, and 24-26 is reversed. REVERSED LEE E. BARRETT ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS Administrative Patent Judge ) AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP ) Administrative Patent Judge ) Appeal No. 2002-1767 Application 09/362,530 - 7 - WALTER J. TENCZA, JR. 10 STATION PLACE, SUITE 3 METUCHEN, NJ 08840 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation