11376896 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

Ex Parte Sanders

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2014

11376896 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/376,896 03/16/2006 Daniel Sanders 26530.113 (IDR-921) 4932 47699 7590 09/25/2014 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP IP Section 2323 Victory Avenue Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 EXAMINER LIAO, JASON G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte DANIEL SANDERS ________________ Appeal 2012-003913 Application 11/376,896 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ERIC B. CHEN, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–10, and 13–21. Claims 3, 4, 11, and 12 are canceled. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1, 2, 5, 8–10, and 13–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fan (US 2005/0114314 A1; published May 26, 2005), Harbarth (US 2005/0131895 A1; published June 16, 2005), and Brownell (Referencing multiple DTD in an XMI document, Nov. 2, 1999, http://mailman.ic.ac.uk/pipermail/xml-dev/1999-November/015894.html). Ans. 6–18. Appeal 2012-003913 Application 11/376,896 2 Claims 6, 7, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fan, Harbarth, Brownell, and Knuth (The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 3, 482–485, 2nd Ed., Addison-Wesley, 1998). Ans. 18– 21. We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to maintenance of indexes for XML files. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method of efficiently managing indexes for an XML document stored in an XML database, the method comprising: providing a first XML index definition document (“XIDD”) for defining a first index for the XML document, the first XIDD comprising an in-memory tree structure for identifying elements and attributes to be indexed, including a context of the elements and attributes with respect to one another, wherein the first XIDD is applied to the XML document to create a first set of index keys for the XML document stored in the XML database; responsive to a change to the XML document affecting an update node thereof, performing a limited, localized traversal of the XML document around the update node to determine whether the change affects the first set of index keys; and updating the first set of index keys as necessitated by the change; the method further comprising: providing at least one additional XIDD for defining at least one additional index for the XML document, each additional first XIDD comprising an in-memory tree structure for identifying elements and attributes to be indexed, including a context of the elements and attributes with respect to one another, wherein the at least one additional XIDD is Appeal 2012-003913 Application 11/376,896 3 applied to the XML document to create at least one additional set of index keys for the XML document stored in the XML database; and providing a master table comprising, for each node in each of the XIDDs, an entry that points to the XIDD node, wherein one of the entries of the master table points to at least one node of the first XIDD and to at least one node of the additional XIDD. CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, 8–10, AND 13–19 OVER FAN, HARBARTH, AND BROWNELL The Examiner finds the combination of Fan, Harbarth, and Brownell teaches all limitations of independent claim 1. Ans. 6–9. The Examiner relies on Fan’s D-Ancestor tree for teaching the recited master table. Ans. 7 (citing Fan ¶¶ 30, 62). The Examiner further explains that Fan’s D-Ancestor tree points to S-Ancestor trees. Ans. 9 (citing Fan, Fig. 9). Appellant argues, among other arguments, that The Examiner overlooks the fact that every embodiment of Fan shows that the B+tree is an index tree that is searched by ancestry and not by entries in a master table that point to each node. For example, Fig. 6 of Fan [] illustrates a B+tree including D-Ancestor and S-Ancestor. As shown, the B+tree is accessed by ancestry. No part of the B+tree structure includes a master table having elements that point[] to each node in each XIDD. Therefore, Fan simply does not teach or suggest “providing a master table comprising, for each node in each of the XIDDs, an entry that points to the XIDD node,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 16. In response, the Examiner explains “[t]here are no prohibitions to the types of data structures that may be used for a Master Table. Rather, the Appeal 2012-003913 Application 11/376,896 4 written description makes it quite clear that the Master Table may be any appropriate structure, ‘so long as it is fast.’” Ans. 28. The Examiner further explains “since the relationships between nodes are indexed, the nodes must be somehow indexed. Therefore, Fan provides the details required by the claim limitations.” Ans. 28. In the Reply Brief, Appellant further argues “[t]he Examiner has overlooked the fact that claim 1 does not recite ‘somehow indexing nodes.’ Rather, the language in claim 1 explicitly delineates the relationship between the entries in the Master Table and the nodes in each of the XIDDs.” Reply Br. 11. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has not sufficiently established that Fan teaches a master table as recited in claim 1. Claim 1 requires a master table having, for each node in each of the XIDDs, an entry that points to the XIDD node. As far as we can understand from the record, the Examiner maps Fan’s D-Ancestor tree to the recited master table. Ans. 7, 9; see also Ans. 32 (wherein the Examiner concludes in a section labeled “A slightly more involved discussion, as dicta,” that “[t]herefore, the D-ancestor tree must index each node expressed by the [Document Type Definitions] DTD”). The Examiner further explains that Fan’s DTD is being interpreted as corresponding to the claimed XIDDs. Ans. 30, 31. Fan’s D-Ancestor tree points to various nodes. See Fan, Figs. 6 and 9, and associated description. However, we agree with Appellant that a teaching of indexing alone is not sufficient to establish that Fan’s D- Ancestor tree has entries respectively pointing to each node in each of the XIDDs as recited in claim 1 because indexing is broader than the recited limitations relating to master table entries in claim 1. Fan’s general Appeal 2012-003913 Application 11/376,896 5 teachings of indexing do not appear to teach or suggest the particular indexing approach in claim 1. There may be multiple ways to build an index, and to the extent that Fan generally teaches indexing, the Examiner has not established that Fan teaches the specific indexing approach recited in claim 1, which requires a master table having, for each node in each of the XIDDs, an entry that points to the XIDD node. For example, Fan may indirectly reach the various nodes rather than having the specific entries required by claim 1. Further, we also note that Fan’s (Fan, Fig. 6) indexing with D- Ancestor and S-Ancestor trees is not sufficient to establish that Fan teaches one of the entries of the master table points to at least one node of the first XIDD and to at least one node of the additional XIDD, as recited in claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Fan, Harbarth, and Brownell, or of claims 2, 5, and 8, which depend from claim 1. We likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9, which recites “a master table comprising, for each node in each of the XIDDs, an entry that points to the XIDD node,” or of claims 10 and 13– 16, which depend from claim 9. We likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 17, which recites “a master table comprising, for each node in each of the XIDDs, an entry that points to the XIDD node,” or of claims 18 and 19, which depend from claim 17. Appeal 2012-003913 Application 11/376,896 6 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 6, 7, 20, AND 21 OVER FAN, HARBARTH, BROWNELL, AND KNUTH The Examiner finds the combination of Fan, Harbarth, Brownell, and Knuth teaches all limitations of claims 6, 7, 20, and 21. Ans. 18–21. The Examiner does not rely on Knuth to overcome the deficiencies of Fan, Harbarth, and Brownell discussed above when addressing claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 20, and 21. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–10, and 13–21 is reversed.1 REVERSED rvb 1 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued preliminary examination instructions on patent eligible subject matter. See “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.,” Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014. See, e.g., claim 9, as amended July 1, 2010 (wherein Appellant attempted to overcome a prior § 101 rejection, which was based upon finding that the claim was directed to software per se, by amending claim 9 to state that the XML database comprises a storage device).