Ex Parte Ng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2017

13464897 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/464,897 05/04/2012 Rondy Ng 088325-0826402
(113400US)
4506
51206 7590 09/26/2017
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
HARMON, COURTNEY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
oraclepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com
KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONDY NG, ROBERT C. ZWIEBACH, DAVID HAIMES,
DJIAO MEI SIAUW, GREGORY DAVID ROTH, ARUNESH
BANERJEE, SANTOSH KUMAR MAT AM, and
VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY KOSURI
Appeal 2017-005346
Application 13/464,897
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-005346
Application 13/464,897
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—4, 7—10, 13, 15, 16, 19-23, and 26—29. Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17,
18, 24, and 25 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A system, comprising:
a processor;
a computer-readable storage medium;
a metadata repository configured to store structure
metadata that defines one or more structures for storing
data in both a relational database, and a multidimensional
database;
wherein the metadata repository is further
configured to store first metadata that describes a
mapping between (1) cells of a table in the relational
database and (2) cells of an Online Analytical Processing
(OLAP) cube structure stored within the
multidimensional database;
synchronization component logic configured to
detect that a change has been made to the OLAP cube
structure within the multidimensional database;
synchronization logic to modify the first metadata
to reflect the change that has been made to the OLAP
cube structure within the multidimensional database in
response to detecting that the change has been made to
the OLAP cube structure within the multidimensional
database; and
synchronization logic to modify the table in the
relational database based on the modification to the first
2
Appeal 2017-005346
Application 13/464,897
metadata that was performed in response to the change
that has been made to the OLAP cube structure within
the multidimensional database,
wherein the detection that a change has been made
to the OLAP cube structure, the modification of the first
metadata to reflect the change that has been made to the
OLAP cube structure, and the modification of the table in
the relational database based on the modification to the
first metadata, are performed within the same computing
process instance.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 21—23, 28, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Colossi (US 2004/0215626 Al; published Oct. 28, 2004), MacIntyre
(US 2003/0144868 Al; published July 31, 2003), and Soylemez
(US 2004/0236767 Al; published Nov. 25, 2004).1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, 14, 26, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Colossi,
MacIntyre, Soylemez, and Statchuk (US 2007/0055680 Al; published
Mar. 8, 2007).
3. The Examiner rejected claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Colossi, MacIntyre,
Soylemez, and Lo (US 2010/0198777 Al; published Aug. 5, 2010).
4. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 10, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Colossi,
1 The patentability of claims 2—4, 7—10, 13, 15, 16, 19-23, 26, and 27 is not
separately argued from that of claim 1. See App. Br. 8—9. Thus, except for
our ultimate decision, claims 2—4, 7—10, 13, 15, 16, 19-23, 26, and 27 are
not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal 2017-005346
Application 13/464,897
MacIntyre, Soylemez, and Kumar (US 2011/0289092 Al; published
Nov. 24, 2011).
Appellants ’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
To the contrary, none of [the cited] sections nor any other
portion of Soylemez refer to performing multiple features
within the same computing process instance, as recited in
independent claim 1. In fact, Soylemez never uses the terms
“instance” or “process instance,” but only the term “process,”
which is a general term that does not convey that any specific
steps of the process must be performed within a single
computing processing instance.
Moreover, the cited portions confirm that Soylemez does
in fact use multiple process instances to perform the tasks
described. Specifically, the relied-upon portions of Soylemez
describe that “abstract data type definitions” are returned from a
multidimensional database server 106 to a relational database
server 108. As shown in FIG. 1 of Soylemez, the
multidimensional database server 106 and relational database
server 108 are separate servers, and thus communication between
them must require at least two separate processes, one
executing at each server. Thus, even assuming that Soylemez’s
“abstract data type definitions” correspond to the first metadata
mapping of claim 1 (which Appellants do not admit), Soylemez
still does not teach or suggest (a) detecting a change to an OLAP
cube structure, (b) modifying the first metadata mapping
between the cells of relational database and the cells of the OLAP
cube structure, and then (c) modifying the table in the relational
database based on the modification to the first metadata within
the same computing process instance, as recited in independent
claim 1.
4
Appeal 2017-005346
Application 13/464,897
App. Br. 8, Appellants’ emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s emphasis
added; see also Reply Br. 2—3.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[Njeither the cited paragraphs of Soylemez nor any other
sections of the cited references teach or suggest a definition file
for mapping between a relational database and the OLAP cube
structure containing a plurality of dimension fields, as recited in
claim 28. In fact, the Office Action appears to equate the
“definition file comprising a plurality of dimension fields . . .
corresponding to a cube structure within the multidimensional
database,” with Soylemez’s reference to “abstract data type
definitions.” Appellants submit that Soylemez’s “abstract data
type definitions” are not the same as or equivalent to a
“definition file comprising a plurality of dimension fields ...
corresponding to a cube structure within the multidimensional
databaseas recited in dependent claim 28.
App. Br. 9-10, Appellants’ citations omitted, panel’s emphasis added; see
also Reply Br. 3.
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Thus, paragraph [78] of [Soylemez] relates to the dynamic
creation of abstract data type definitions, and the returning of
abstract data type definitions to a relational database. However,
neither this paragraph nor any other portion of [Soylemez],
teaches or suggests wherein “user-interface triggers are used
to detect the change to the OLAP cube structure within the
multidimensional database,” as recited in claim 29.
App. Br. 10, emphasis added; see also Reply Br. 3-A.
5
Appeal 2017-005346
Application 13/464,897
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1,28, and 29 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Although Appellants contend that Soylemez’s abstract data
type definition does not teach or suggest the claimed “first metadata
[describing] a mapping between (1) cells of a table in [a] relational database
and (2) cells of an Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) cube structure
stored within [a] multidimensional database” (see App. Br. 8), Appellants do
not provide any arguments or evidence establishing that the claimed “first
metadata” is patentably distinct from Soylemez’s abstract data type
definition. Further, contrary to Appellants’ contention, Soylemez does teach
or suggest performing multiple features within a same computing process
instance, as Soylemez discloses a multidimensional database server fetching
and organizing multidimensional data requested within a query initiated by a
relational database server, where abstract data type definitions are
dynamically created to define the multimedia data values and returned to the
relational database server as part of the process of fetching and organizing
the multidimensional data. See Final Act. 8 (citing Soylemez || 77—78); see
also Ans. 2—\.
Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
As to Appellants’ above contention 2, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Again, Appellants contend that Soylemez’s abstract data
6
Appeal 2017-005346
Application 13/464,897
type definition does not teach or suggest the claimed “definition file defining
a mapping between [a] table in [a] relational database and [an] OLAP cube
structure stored within [a] multidimensional database, the . . . definition file
comprising a plurality of dimension fields . . . corresponding to a cube
structure within the multidimensional database” (see App. Br. 9-10).
Appellants do not, however, provide any arguments or evidence establishing
that the claimed “definition file” is patentably distinct from Soylemez’s
abstract data type definition. As correctly found by the Examiner, Soylemez
discloses an abstract data type table associated with an abstract data type
definition, where the abstract data type table describes a mapping of source
multidimensional data objects to target rows and columns of a relational
database table. See Final Act. 16 (citing Soylemez H 74, 77); see also
Ans. 4—6. We agree with the Examiner that Soylemez’s disclosure teaches
or suggests the claimed “definition file.” Thus, the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 28. Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of claim 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As to Appellants’ above contention 3, we are persuaded the Examiner
erred. Claim 29 recites “[using] user-interface triggers ... to detect [a]
change to [an] OLAP cube structure within [a] multidimensional database.”
Appellants’ specification describes a change to a user interface as an
example of a user-interface trigger. See e.g., Spec. 121. We agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown how Soylemez’s
disclosure of a query requesting data teaches or suggests the claimed “user-
interface triggers” (see App. Br. 10), as the Examiner has failed to explain
where Soylemez teaches that an operation involving a user interface triggers
a query requesting data, or otherwise explain how a query teaches or
7
Appeal 2017-005346
Application 13/464,897
suggests a user-interface operation. See Final Act. 17; see also Ans. 6—7.
Thus, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 29. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—4, 7—10, 13, 15,
16, 19-23, and 26—28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Appellants have established the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
29 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1—4, 7—10, 13, 15, 16, 19-23, and 26—28 are not
patentable.
(4) On this record, claim 29 has not been shown to be unpatentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 7—10, 13, 15, 16,
19-23, and 26—28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8