Ex Parte Rugland et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2013

10957363 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TERJE RUGLAND and TROND BENUM
____________________

Appeal 2010-010190
Application 10/957,363
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, HUNG H. BUI, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-010190
Application 10/957,363

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-15, 17-20, 22-25, 27-32, 34-41 and 43. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 4, 13, 16, 21, 26, 33 and
42 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to an apparatus for
accessing database attributes by scanning a user request to verify whether
the request contains an artificial attribute, dynamically building a real
attribute from the artificial attribute based on a combination of the artificial
attribute and non-spatial data components received from a data access layer
which maps a visible attribute to the non-spatial data components stored by
topic (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for accessing database attributes stored in a first
database, comprising:

a memory configured to store a first data access layer having a
second database and a second data access layer having a third
database,

the first data access layer for:

Appeal 2010-010190
Application 10/957,363

3
mapping a first visible attribute to first non-spatial data
components of a first proprietary spatial attribute of the first
database, wherein the first visible attribute is stored in the first
data access layer by topic, and

providing access to retrieve the non-spatial data components
while hiding a first database implementation of the first
proprietary spatial attribute,

the second data access layer for:

mapping a second visible attribute to second non-spatial data
components of a second proprietary spatial attribute of a fourth
database, wherein the second visible attribute is stored in the
second data access layer by topic, and

providing access to retrieve the second non-spatial data
components while hiding a second database implementation of
the second proprietary spatial attribute, and

the second database and the third database comprising meta
data, wherein the meta data comprises a first artificial attribute
used to create a first artificial attribute post processor and a
second artificial attribute used to create a second artificial
attribute post processor, wherein the first artificial attribute
describes a first spatial data type of a first real attribute and first
visible attribute for dynamically building the first real attribute,
and wherein the second artificial attribute describes a second
spatial data type of a second real attribute and second visible
attribute for dynamically building the second real attribute, and

a processor configured to:

execute an attribute pre-processing module for scanning a user
request to verify whether the request includes the first artificial
attribute and the second artificial attribute,

create the first artificial attribute post processor suitable for
Appeal 2010-010190
Application 10/957,363

4
dynamically building the first real attribute from a first
combination of the first artificial attribute received from the
first attribute pre-processing module and the first non-
spatial data components received from the first data access
layer, and

create the second artificial attribute post processor suitable for
dynamically building the second real attribute from a second
combination of the second artificial attribute received from the
second attribute pre-processing module and the second non-
spatial data components received from the second data access
layer,

wherein the second database and the third database comprise a
plurality of artificial attributes stored in meta data, wherein the
plurality of artificial attributes are stored by topic for selecting
the first artificial attribute and the second artificial attribute
from the plurality of artificial attributes.

References

Kirsch US 5,845,278 A Dec. 1, 1998
McDonald US 2002/0161788 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
von Kaenel1 US 7,107,285 B2 Sep. 12, 2006

Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14,15, 17-20, 22-25, 27-32, 34-41, and 43 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over von Kaenel,
McDonald, and Kirsch.

1 Although the Final Office Action refers to this reference as von Kaenel, the
Appeal Brief and the Examiner’s Answer refer to this same reference as
Kaenel. We refer to this reference as “von Kaenel.”
Appeal 2010-010190
Application 10/957,363

5

Claim Groupings
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 15, 17-
20, 22-25, 27-32, 34-41, and 43. (See App. Br. 12-20).
We have only considered those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Brief. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make
in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 15, 17-20, 22-25, 27-32, 34-41,
and 43
Appellants assert the Examiner has incorrectly argued von Kaenel
discloses a processor configured to “create the first artificial attribute post
processor suitable for dynamically building the first real attribute from a first
combination of the first artificial attribute received from the first attribute
pre-processing module and the first non-spatial data components received
from the first data access layer,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 13-14).
Specifically, Appellants contend von Kaenel’s teaching of transforming
and/or adding data by a server system does not disclose the disputed
limitation. (App. Br. 14-15). Instead, Appellants contend von Kaenel
discloses the server system uses meta data to transform or add data for
display by the client software (App. Br. 15). In particular, Appellants argue
von Kaenel cannot disclose creating a first artificial attribute post processor
Appeal 2010-010190
Application 10/957,363

6
because the data is transformed or added in von Kaenel using preexisting
components (App. Br. 15).
Next, Appellants contend von Kaenel does not disclose “providing
access to retrieve the non-spatial data components while hiding a first
database implementation of the first proprietary spatial attribute,” as recited
in claim 1 (App. Br. 15). Appellants point out von Kaenel only discloses
users may access data, but is completely silent with respect to the user
retrieving data from the data store (App. Br. 16. (citing von Kaenel, col. 51,
ll. 14-48)). Appellants specifically assert allowing a user to view or edit data
is clearly not equivalent to providing access to retrieve the non-spatial data
components while hiding a first database implementation of the first
proprietary spatial attribute (App. Br. 16-17).
Thirdly, Appellants assert von Kaenel fails to disclose “mapping a
first visible attribute to first non-spatial data components,” as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 17). Appellants contend von Kaenel discloses geocoding
as a feature that performs the function of translating an address (non-spatial
data components) to a latitude/longitude pair (visible attribute) (id. (quoting
von Kaenel, col. 21, ll. 61-63)). Appellants argue the function of translating
is clearly not equivalent to mapping (App. Br. 18).

Issue 1a: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of von
Kaenel, McDonald, and Kirsch teaches “creat[ing] the first artificial attribute
post processor suitable for dynamically building the first real attribute from a
first combination of the first artificial attribute received from the first
Appeal 2010-010190
Application 10/957,363

7
attribute pre-processing module and the first non-spatial data components
received from the first data access layer,” as recited in claim 1?
Issue 1b: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of von
Kaenel, McDonald, and Kirsch teaches “providing access to retrieve the
non-spatial data components while hiding a first database implementation of
the first proprietary spatial attribute,” as recited in claim 1?
Issue 1c: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of von
Kaenel, McDonald, and Kirsch teaches “mapping a first visible attribute to
first non-spatial data components,” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Issue 1a:
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
determination. Specifically, as the Examiner explains, von Kaenel teaches a
server system that uses threads which are dynamically created and destroyed
(Ans. 15 (citing von Kaenel, col. 107, ll. 42-47)). Appellants have not
explicitly defined “real attribute” in their Specification. Nonetheless, we
agree with the Examiner’s interpretation in light of the Specification that a
real attribute is built from a combination of the artificial attribute received
from the attribute pre-processing module and a visible attribute received
from the first database via the data access layer (Ans. 15 (citing Spec.
¶ [0005])). Visible attributes are defined in the Specification as attributes
the user can physically perceive on a display (Spec. ¶ [0020]).
We find von Kaenel teaches taking data and automatically
transforming the data and/or adding to the data so it may be viewed spatially
Appeal 2010-010190
Application 10/957,363

8
by a client system (col. 31, ll. 25-28). The Examiner states von Kaenel
illustrates an embodiment of this step in which threads of the server combine
various spatial data, such as roads 1351, customer info 1352, and sales
territory 1353, with visible attributes to show on the display 1310 (Ans. 15-
16 (citing von Kaenel, Fig. 13)). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that
von Kaenel teaches the creation of many threads which have the same
functionality of the claimed first artificial post processor (Ans. 16).
Appellants further claim von Kaenel’s transforming the data and/or
adding to the data is distinguished from creating a first artificial post
processor (App. Br. 14 (citing von Kaenel, col. 31, ll. 25-28 and col. 32, ll.
58-60)). We find this to be a distinction without a difference. Appellants
have further not convinced us von Kaenel cannot disclose creating a first
artificial post processor because the data is transformed or added in von
Kaenel using preexisting components.
Therefore, we find von Kaenel teaches or suggests the threads of the
server teach the claimed “processor configured to . . . create the first
artificial attribute post processor suitable for dynamically building the first
real attribute from a first combination of the first artificial attribute received
from the first attribute pre-processing module and the first non-spatial data
components received from the first data access layer.”

Issue 1b:
Next, the Examiner points out Appellants admit von Kaenel teaches a
server system responsible for retrieving editable data elements from the data
store (Ans. 17 (citing App. Br. 16)). Further, the Examiner finds, and we
Appeal 2010-010190
Application 10/957,363

9
agree, that the user of the system does not know the underlying database
implementation of the data (i.e., the proprietary data of the database) (Ans.
17). Thus, we find von Kaenel teaches “providing access to retrieve the
non-spatial data components while hiding a first database implementation of
the first proprietary spatial attribute.”

Issue 1c:
The Examiner notes a visible attribute is defined in the Specification
as an attribute a user can see on a display (Ans. 18 and Spec. ¶ [0018]).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that spatial data is a visible attribute
because that data can be viewed spatially on a display (Ans. 18). We find
von Kaenel teaches enterprise data and third party data (including maps and
infra-structure data) are converted to spatially referenced data by associating
geographic information with non-spatially referenced data to form a
composite image (Ans. 18 and von Kaenel, col. 18, ll. 29-37). As the
Examiner points out, von Kaenel illustrates this in Fig. 15 where spatial data
in table 1545 is combined with non-spatial data in table 1513 to create
visible attributes to be viewed on display screen 1590 (Ans. 19 (citing Von
Kaenel, Fig. 15)). Therefore, we find von Kaenel teaches “mapping a first
visible attribute to first non-spatial data components.”
Appellants have not persuaded us associating geographic information
with non-spatially referenced data is not equivalent to mapping. Further,
von Kaenel depicts data, such as customer information 1332, roads
information 1331, and/or sales territory boundaries 1333, being mapped in a
multiple data layering (Fig. 13).
Appeal 2010-010190
Application 10/957,363

10
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding von
Kaenel teaches or suggests “mapping a first visible attribute to first non-
spatial data components.”
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of von Kaenel, McDonald, and Kirsch teaches or suggests the
invention as recited in claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 5-12, 14-15, 17-20, 22-25,
27-32, 34-41, and 43, not separately argued. Accordingly, the Examiner did
not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-15, 17-20, 22-25, 27-32, 34-41, and
43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over von Kaenel, McDonald,
and Kirsch.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-15, 17-20, 22-25,
27-32, 34-41 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
von Kaenel, McDonald, and Kirsch 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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

msc