Ex Parte Ruddy

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 10, 2004

09037879 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 2004)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte JAMES A. RUDDY

Appeal No. 2002-1756
Application No. 09/037,879

ON BRIEF

Before KRASS, RUGGIERO and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-31.
The invention is directed to the recovery of data
definitions using log records in a database management system.
Such log records maintain a record of all additions and
deletions of information regarding data definitions from the
system catalog of the database management system. The instant
Appeal No. 2002-1756
Application No. 09/037,879
-2-
invention first locates the log records relating to the
information regarding data definitions which have been deleted or
otherwise inaccessible from the system catalog. Then, the log
records are extracted or read. The data definition information
is extracted from these read log records and, finally, the
extracted information is translated into the appropriate data
definition instructions for the database management system so
that the data definitions may be restored.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A computer system for recreating data definitions in a
database system, the computer system comprising:
log records for storing information, including information
regarding changes in the database system; and
a processor for extracting data definition information from
the information stored in the log records and translating the
data definition information into data definition instructions for
the database system.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Sherman et al. (Sherman) 5,832,508 Nov. 3, 1998
(filed Nov. 14, 1996)
Boudrie et al. (Boudrie) 5,890,165 Mar. 30, 1999
(filed Mar. 29, 1996)
Claims 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Boudrie in view of Sherman.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2002-1756
Application No. 09/037,879
-3-
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth
in Graham v, John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in
the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art or
to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed
invention. Such reason must stem from some teachings,
suggestions or implications in the prior art as a whole or
knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the
art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052,
5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc. ,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore
Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
These showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying
with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
Appeal No. 2002-1756
Application No. 09/037,879
-4-
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
(see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)).
The examiner contends that Boudrie discloses the claimed
subject matter but for a teaching of “logging of transactions in
order to determine their effect” (answer, page 4). The examiner
then turns to Sherman for a teaching of “logging is more
efficient than the ‘interrogates’ of Boudrie” (answer, page 4)
and concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the
logging of transactions in order to determine their effect”
(answer, page 4).
Appellant argues that Boudrie only provides information on
the allocation of various databases among different storage
Appeal No. 2002-1756
Application No. 09/037,879
-5-
devices but does not provide any information on the internal data
definitions within the database. Appellant further argues that
Sherman discloses no more than what appellant admits as prior
art, i.e., log files for logging database changes and the use of
these log records for performing a “rollback” procedure. Thus,
according to appellant, neither of the applied references
discloses or suggests the regeneration of lost data definitions
from the log records in the data definition language so that the
database itself may be recreated, as is claimed by appellant.
This is more than a mere restoration of data as in the known
rollback instruction.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed
subject matter.
While the examiner has cited various portions of the applied
references, it is not clear to us how these cited portions are
being applied to the specific claim limitations. For example,
the examiner cites column 4, lines 27-38 and Figure 7B of Boudrie
as evidence of “translating of the data definition information
into data definition instructions.” We find the word “translates”
in Figure 7B of the reference, but, other than that, we are
Appeal No. 2002-1756
Application No. 09/037,879
-6-
completely at a loss to determine how the allocation of databases
to storage devices discussed by Boudrie at column 4, lines 27-38,
corresponds to the specifically claimed “translating the data
definition information into data definition instructions.”
Moreover, the examiner has not convincingly pointed to
anything in Boudrie relating to the claimed “data definitions.”
The examiner points to column 1, lines 45-61, of Boudrie for the
teaching of recreating data definitions in a database system. We
find nothing in the cited portion of the reference relating to
“data definitions in a database system.”
Further, appellant makes a fair case that Sherman discloses
nothing more than the admitted prior art relating to a “rollback”
instruction, over which the instant claimed subject matter is
disclosed as having advantages. Yet, the examiner has not
convincingly rebutted this argument by pointing to anything
specific in the applied references indicating some suggestion of
the claimed translation of data definition information into data
definition instructions so that the data definitions may be
restored.
Appeal No. 2002-1756
Application No. 09/037,879
-7-
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGERIO ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK:clm
Appeal No. 2002-1756
Application No. 09/037,879
-8-
Sughrue, Mion, Zinn,
MacPeak & Seas, PLLC
Suite 360
1010 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, CA 94025