Ex Parte Middleton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2014

12023847 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ELLIOTT MIDDLETON, NIELS JENSEN, and
KEYNON W. BASINGER
____________________

Appeal 2012-003199
Application 12/023,847
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-003199
Application 12/023,847
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to adaptively retrieving parameter trend data
from a supervisory control manufacturing/production database. Abst. Claim
1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A programmed computer having a physical computer
readable medium including computer-executable instructions
for a database client for use in a system including a control
system database server incorporating a database service
supporting a set of data retrieval modes for providing, on-
request by the database client, sets of data from previously
tabled data stored from streams of real-time data points, the
database client comprising:
a retrieval style including a set of retrieval type
definitions, wherein each retrieval type definition is associated
with:
a retrieval mode from the set of data retrieval
modes supported by the database service, and
a selection criterion for selecting the retrieval type
definition, for a query submitted to the database server
for a particular tag; and
a data retrieval component that receives a query for tag
data to be retrieved from the database server, the query
specifying:
a tag to which the retrieval style is applicable, and
a time span for which data associated with the tag
is to be provided by the database server,
wherein the data retrieval component includes decision
logic for applying the selection criterion specified by individual
ones of the set of retrieval type definitions of the retrieval style
to the tag specified by the query to specify the retrieval mode of
Appeal 2012-003199
Application 12/023,847
3
an applicable retrieval type definition from the set of retrieval
type definitions.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hamilton US 7,123,974 B1 Oct. 17, 2006

REJECTIONS1
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hamilton. Ans. 4–9.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
a) “Hamilton’s database contains a set of multi-variable-value records
summarizing previous user transaction events,” not streamed data
continuously generated by the system and therefore fails to disclose the
disputed limitation of “a set of data retrieval modes . . . data stored from
streams of real-time data points,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 9–10.
b) “[Hamilton’s] audit schema 410 that specifies the way in which data from
a set of retrieved user transaction records are presented in an audit report”
fails to disclose “a retrieval style including a set of retrieval type
definitions,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 11.
c) Because Hamilton does not disclose a retrieval style, it follows the
reference also fails to disclose, and the Examiner has failed to

1 Appellants argue the rejection of independent claims 1, 15 and 18 based on
claim 1 alone. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2–
14, 16, 17, 19 and 20. Therefore, on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the
appeal of claims 1–20 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2012-003199
Application 12/023,847
4
specifically identify, “a data retrieval component,” as required by claim
1. App. Br. 12.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7–12)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 7), the issues presented on appeal are whether the
Examiner erred in finding Hamilton discloses the disputed limitations of
claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4–9) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 9–12) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
In connection with contention a, Appellants argue the disputed
retrieval modes correspond to operations carried out by a database service on
a sequence of data values for a streamed real-time data point to produce a
reduced set of data. App. Br. 9. Appellants explain the retrieval modes
reduce the quantity of data values transmitted over a network link from the
database server to another network node hosting a requesting database client.
Id. The Examiner responds by finding, although not using the term
“streams,” Hamilton’s recording of “all interactions . . . during a current
session” is equivalent to and discloses “operating on ‘streams’ of data
because, as Appellant notes, ‘streamed data’ is data ‘that is continuously
Appeal 2012-003199
Application 12/023,847
5
generated by the system’, as in Hamilton.” Ans. 10. The Examiner further
finds Hamilton’s extraction of real-time data from a database and use of the
extracted data to generate, transmit, displace and/or report provides modes
for fetching portion of logged real-time streams from a database thereby
disclosing the disputed set of data retrieval modes. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Hamilton’s recording component is
described as recording all interactions with the control system during a
session (Hamilton col. 2, ll. 48–52) thereby disclosing the disputed
limitation of data stored from steams of real-time data points. In connection
with data retrieval modes, we find no specific definition of the terminology
in Appellants’ Specification other than by way of example. Therefore, under
a broad interpretation consistent with Appellants’ Specification, we agree
with the Examiner that Hamilton’s audit and reporting rules for generating
audit reports defined by schema 410 (Hamilton col. 8, l. 52 – col. 9, l. 6)
disclose the disputed data retrieval modes. See Ans. 10. Therefore, we are
not persuaded of error by Appellants’ contention a.
In connection with contention b, Appellants argue
when applying Hamilton to Appellants’ claimed ‘set of retrieval type
definitions,’ [Hamilton] actually describes an audit schema 410 that
specifies the way in which data from a set of retrieved user transaction
records are presented in an audit report. Nowhere does Hamilton
describe how data presented in an audit report is retrieved by the
client application.

App. Br. 10–11. The Examiner responds by finding Hamilton discloses and
claim 1 requires “the data is pulled from the database, transformed and
delivered to a user in a desired format.” Ans. 11. The Examiner further
finds Hamilton discloses exporting data from the database in an arbitrary
XML format. Id. Therefore, the Examiner finds Hamilton discloses the
Appeal 2012-003199
Application 12/023,847
6
disputed limitation of a retrieval style including a set of retrieval type
definitions.
We agree with the Examiner. We are not persuaded of error by
Appellants’ contention essentially arguing, inter alia, Hamilton is deficient
because there is no disclosure of what data is initially retrieved from the
database because claim 1 does not limit when the retrieval type definitions
are applied. That is, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1,
the entirety of Hamilton discloses a retrieval process such that Hamilton’s
schema discloses the disputed limitation of a retrieval style including a set of
retrieval type definitions. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence or
argument in rebutting the Examiner’s findings, Appellants’ contention b is
unpersuasive of error.
In connection with contention c, Appellants argue “Hamilton does not
even disclose the claimed ‘retrieval style’ which is applied, by the claimed
data retrieval component, to a query containing a tag and a time span to
determine an applicable one of the retrieval type definitions.” App. Br. 12.
Appellants further request specific identification of those features of
Hamilton found by the Examiner to disclose the claimed decision logic. Id.
In response, the Examiner finds “[a] ‘data retrieval component’ is inherent to
any system where data is retrieved. In the case of Hamilton, the retrieval
component is the Record and/or Tracking Component 710. Similarly,
‘decision logic’ is inherent to any computer program.” Ans. 12 citing
Hamilton col. 4, l. 37 – col. 5, l. 23.
We agree with the Examiner. There is no ipsissimis verbis test for
determining whether a reference discloses a claim element, i.e., identity of
terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Absent persuasive evidence or argument in rebuttal, we find the Examiner’s
Appeal 2012-003199
Application 12/023,847
7
explanation to be reasonable and agree that Hamilton discloses the disputed
limitations.
Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence or argument, we are
unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of
independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, independent claims 15 and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hamilton together with
the rejections of dependent claims 2–14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 not separately
argued.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding Hamilton discloses the disputed
limitations of claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED