Ex Parte Mack

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2004

09362530 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2004)

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and is not binding precedent of the Board.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