Ex Parte Oberle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 7, 2018

14445343 (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/445,343 07/29/2014
50400 7590 05/09/2018
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Daniel Oberle
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2058.966US 1 6873
EXAMINER
CASANOVA, JORGE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2018 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL OBERLE
Appeal 2017-011163
Application 14/445,343 1
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is SAP SE. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011163
Application 14/445,343
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention relates generally to "systems and methods for
use with the storage of triples," and more particularly to "methods and
systems for an in-memory cloud triple store." Spec. i-f 1. Independent claim
1 is directed to a method; independent claim 8 is directed to a system; and
independent claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable
medium. App. Br. 17-19.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, from a first application, a triple to store in a
triple store, the triple defining data having a subject, predicate,
and object;
sending the triple to a triple store interface configured to
persist the triple in an in-memory database management system,
the in-memory database management system comprising an in-
memory database where data is persisted;
receiving a request from a second application to query the
triple store;
utilizing a cloud-based triple store query server to process
the request and generate an in-memory database management
system query to the in-memory database management system;
receiving results of the in-memory database management
system query from the in-memory database management system;
and
sending the result to the second application for display to
a user.
2
Appeal 2017-011163
Application 14/445,343
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more. Ans. 2.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stillerman et al. (US 2014/0108414 Al, published Apr.
17, 2014) ("Stillerman") and Santry (US 2015/0370544 Al, published Dec.
24, 2015), or alternatively over Stillerman and Saito et al. (US
2014/0101177 Al, published Apr. 10, 2014) ("Saito"). Final Act. 3.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Stillerman, Santry, and Bowers et al. (US 2010/0114885 Al, published
May 6, 2010) ("Bowers"), or alternatively over Stillerman, Saito, and
Bowers. Final Act. 6.
Claims 3, 13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Stillerman, Santry, Aasman (US 2008/0243770 Al,
published Oct. 2, 2008), or alternatively over Stillerman, Saito, and Aasman.
Final Act. 7.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Stillerman, Santry, and Rhoads et al. (US
2012/0134548 Al, published May 31, 2012) ("Rhoads"), or alternatively
over Stillerman, Saito, and Rhoads. Final Act. 8.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Stillerman, Santry, Aasman, and Rhoads, or alternatively over
Stillerman, Saito, Aasman, and Rhoads. Final Act. 11.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Stillerman, Santry, Aasman, and Boothroyd (US 2010/0318558 Al,
3
Appeal 2017-011163
Application 14/445,343
published Dec. 16, 2010), or alternatively over Stillennan, Saito, Aasman,
and Boothroyd. Final Act. 12.
Claims 11 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stillerman, Santry, and Boothroyd, or alternatively over
Stillerman, Saito, and Boothroyd. Final Act. 13.
Claims 6 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stillerman, Santry, and Betz et al. (US 2007/0185897 Al,
published Aug. 9, 2007) ("Betz"), or alternatively over Stillerman, Saito, and
Betz. Final Act. 14.
ANALYSIS
35 USC§ 101 Rejections
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014),
identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject
matter is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the first step, "[ w ]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. A
determination, under the first step of the Alice analysis, that the claims are
not directed to a patent-ineligible concept requires no further inquiry as to
patent eligibility.
The Examiner concludes the claims are directed to the abstract idea of
"creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data," and
specifically that "a triple store is being created (i.e., index) and being used
by a second application to query and retrieve information (i.e., using the
index to search for and retrieve data)." Ans. 2 (citing Intellectual Ventures I
LLCv. Erie Indemnity Company, 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
4
Appeal 2017-011163
Application 14/445,343
Appellant argues that the Examiner's interpretation of the claims as
being directed to an abstract idea of creating an index and using that index to
search for and retrieve data is an oversimplification of the claims. Reply Br.
8. As argued by Appellant, the claims do not "even mention the creation of
an index or the use of such an index or searching and retrieving data" nor do
the claims mention the word "index." Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We find that the
Examiner's rejection, that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of
creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data,
oversimplifies the claims and is untethered from the actual language of the
claims. See Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337-1338
(Fed. Cir. 2016) ("describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction
and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the
exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule.").
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101
rejection of claims 1-20.
35 USC§ 103(a) Rejections
Claim 1 recites "receiving, from a first application, a triple to store in
a triple store, the triple defining data having a subject, predicate, and object."
The Examiner finds that Stillerman's loading of index entries into the
in-memory database teaches the receipt of the Resource Description
Framework (RDF) data from another source. Ans. 5 (citing Stillerman i-fi-1 8,
21, 41 ); see Final Act. 3 (citing Stillerman i-fi-1 2, 3 7).
Appellant contends Stillerman teaches RDF database system storing
RDF data, but does not teach that the RDF data is received, and thereby does
5
Appeal 2017-011163
Application 14/445,343
not teach "receiving, from a first application, a triple to store in a triple
store." App. Br. 8-10 (emphasis added).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. As cited by the
Examiner (Ans. 5), Stillerman teaches "script engine 18 receives a script 20
by an external interface and executes script 20 ... Script engine 18 retrieves
chunks 6A, 6B accessible by values of index entries 8B, 8K and loads
chunks 6A, 6B to in-memory RDF data 16." Stillerman i-f 41 (emphasis
added). In other words, Stillerman teaches loading RDF data to an in-
memory RDF database, and thereby teaches the in-memory RDF database
receiving RDF data to store in a triple store.
Claim 1 further recites "sending the triple to a triple store interface
configured to persist the triple in an in-memory database management
system."
Appellant contends that Stillerman teaches retrieval of chunks from
the chunk storage system 42 via the chunk storage API 40 for the script
engine to retrieve and execute a script, but does not teach that the same triple
is sent back over to the chunk storage API to be persisted. Reply Br. 2.
More specifically, Appellant argues Stillerman teaches retrieving a piece of
data from a persistent storage but not persisting a piece of data in a persistent
storage. Id.
Appellant's argument against Stillerman separately from Santry does
not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ).
6
Appeal 2017-011163
Application 14/445,343
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Santry teaches
"Stillerman can be modified to include an in-memory database, for the
predictable result of retaining (e.g., persist) data after an event such as a
restart or a loss of power." Ans. 5. As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 3-
5), Stillerman teaches retrieving "RDF chunks into in-memory RDF data 16"
(Stillerman i-f 42) and Santry teaches "facilitating persistent storage of in-
memory databases" (Santry i-f 8). In other words, Stillerman and Santry, in
combination, teach the claimed sending a triple to a triple store interface to
an in-memory database (Stillerman's sending data chunks to chunk storage
API to then go to an in-memory database), where the triple is persisted in the
in-memory database management system (Santry's persistent storage of in-
memory databases).
Appellant further argues it would be improper to combine Stillerman
and Santry because Stillerman already has persistent storage where data is
persisted and is safe from restart or loss of power. Reply Br. 3. We agree
with the Examiner's findings that it would be obvious to modify
Stillerman's RDF data storage and querying with Santry's persistent in-
memory database storage "for [the] predictable result of retaining data after
a restart or a loss of power eliminating the need to re-transfer the data to the
in-memory database that facilitates faster retrieval." Final Act. 5; see Ans.
5---6. Appellant has not presented persuasive arguments to address the
Examiner's findings.
Furthermore, we note the pending alternative rejection for claim 1
over Stillerman and Saito. Final Act. 3; see Final Act. 5 ("In the alternative,
Saito also teaches this concept: see claim 7 - 'wherein the in-memory
database persists data .... "'). Appellant has not addressed this alternative
7
Appeal 2017-011163
Application 14/445,343
rejection of claim 1 over Stillerman and Saito. As such, we summarily
affirm the alternative rejection over Stillerman and Saito.
Claim 1 further recites "utilizing a cloud-based triple store query
server to process the request and generate an in-memory database
management system query to the in-memory database management system."
The Examiner finds Stillerman teaches "utilizing cloud based
technologies, additionally, that it can also receive additional requests from
other systems." Ans. 7-8 (citing Stillerman i-fi-135, 43, 66); see Final Act. 4
(citing Stillerman i-fi-126, 35, 65, 82, Fig. 2).
Appellant contends Stillerman's system using cloud based technology
and receiving requests from other systems does not teach the claimed cloud-
based triple store query server. Reply Br. 3--4; see App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. As cited by the
Examiner (Final Act. 4), Stillerman teaches "RDF database system 12 may
provide for cloud computing and distributed computing. RDF database
system 12 may provide for remote invocation via query AP! 36." Stillerman
i1 65 (emphasis added). In other words, Stillerman teaches the RDF database
system provides for cloud computing and remote invocation via query API
(claimed query server), and thereby Stillerman's query API is cloud-based
by association.
Claim 1 further recites "sending the result to the second application."
The Examiner finds Stillerman's parser/evaluator returning script
results to the requestor teaches sending the result to the second application
for display to a user. Final Act. 5 (citing Stillerman i1 82).
8
Appeal 2017-011163
Application 14/445,343
Appellant contends that Stillerman' s returning query results to the
script engine does not teach "returning its query results to the same
application as the original query was received from." App. Br. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Specifically, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that Stillerman teaches that the requestor
that sent the script to the query API is the same application that gets the
results. Ans. 8 (citing Stillerman i-f 82). As cited by the Examiner (Final
Act. 5; Ans. 8), Stillerman teaches "query AP! 36 receives MQL script 45
from a requestor (100)" and "MQL parser/evaluator 34 returns MQL script
result 4 7 to the requestor (116)." Stillerman i-f 82 (emphases added).
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as the rejections of independent claims 8 and 14 which have
limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1, and dependent claims 2-7,
9-13, and 15-20, not separately argued.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
reversed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9