Ex Parte Schloming

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 15, 2012

11068865 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAFAEL H. SCHLOMING
____________

Appeal 2011-006148
Application 11/068,865
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006148
Application 11/068,865

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-31 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. A method of generating a relational query for
retrieving data from a relational database management system
comprising:

receiving, from an object-oriented environment, an object
query containing a description in terms of a logical object
model that identifies a set of data objects;

retrieving, from a mapping schema, (i) object-to-
relational mapping information, and (ii) object-to-object
mapping information that corresponds to the object query,
wherein the object-to-object mapping information is
characterized by a logical description of objects;

translating the object query to an equivalent relational
query for retrieving data from the relational database
management system to satisfy the object query.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 25, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bahulkar (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
2003/0033277 A1, published Feb. 13, 2003) (Ans. 4-8).
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bahulkar in view of Lee (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.:
2003/0218639 A1, published Nov. 27, 2003) (Ans. 9).
Appeal 2011-006148
Application 11/068,865

3
The Examiner rejected claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bahulkar in view of Lee and Farber (U.S. Patent App.
Pub. No. 2003/0217027 A1, Nov. 20, 2003) (Ans. 9-12).
The Examiner rejected claims 11-17, 26, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahulkar in view of Madan (U.S. Patent
No. 6,748,374 B1, issued June 8, 2004) (Ans. 12-18).
The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bahulkar in view of Madan and Chen (U.S. Patent No.
6,385,603 B1, issued May 7, 2002) (Ans. 18-19).
The Examiner rejected claims 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bahulkar in view of Madan, Chen, and Celis (U.S.
Patent No. 5,819,255, issued Oct. 6, 1998) (Ans. 19-22).
The Examiner rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bahulkar in view of Celis (Ans. 22-23).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 3, et seq.).

ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Bahulkar discloses:
receiving, from an object-oriented environment, an
object query containing a description in terms of a logical
object model that identifies a set of data objects;
retrieving, from a mapping schema, (i) object-to-
relational mapping information, and (ii) object-to-object
Appeal 2011-006148
Application 11/068,865

4
mapping information that corresponds to the object query,
wherein the object-to-object mapping information is
characterized by a logical description of objects;
as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added), and as similarly recited
in independent claims 25, 28, and 30?

ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s assertions regarding the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-31. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 3-28) in
response to arguments made in Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with
the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address certain
findings and arguments below.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 as anticipated because Bahulkar does not disclose the claim
limitations emphasized above (App. Br. 15). In support of the contention,
Appellant argues that in Bahulkar, “the QUERY 207 contains no description
that identifies a set of data objects” (id. at 16). The Examiner found,
however, that Bahulkar’s query contains descriptions that identify data
objects because it contains descriptions such as employee Id, name and
department “to identify contract employees (i.e., set of data objects)” (Ans.
25). We agree with the Examiner because Bahulkar discloses a query that
includes “EmpId, EmpName, EmpDept” (¶¶ [0062]-[0063]).
Appellant also argues that Bahulkar does not disclose an “object-to-
object mapping information characterized by a logical description of
objects” (App. Br. 17). Appellant further argues that the object model and
Appeal 2011-006148
Application 11/068,865

5
part number cannot describe each other “because they are distinct and
independent entities” (id.). But these arguments are not commensurate in
scope with claim 1 because claim 1 does not require objects that describe
each other and instead, merely recites “a logical description of objects.”
Moreover, Bahulkar discloses that “[e]ach version of model 101 has an
associated part number” (¶ [0028]). In other words, the association between
a model version and part number is a logical description that characterizes
object-object mapping.
Appellant also argues “that the alleged object-to-object mapping
information (object model 101 according to the Examiner) is not retrieved
from a mapping scheme as required by claim 1” (App. Br. 19). The
Examiner found, however, that “the Mapping Schema 103 is taught as a
middleware layer (0026) that both retrieves and provides mapping
information from model 101” (Ans. 27). We agree with the Examiner.
Bahulkar disclose that “Mapping Schema provides mapping information
from existing objects such as model 101 to relational database schema that
would be employed in a relational database illustrated herein as a relational
database 105” (¶ [0026]). Accordingly, the object-to-object mapping
information is retrieved from a mapping scheme. Thus, we find no error in
the Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 1 as well as independent
claims 25, 28, and 30 because Appellant does not set forth any separate
patentability arguments for those additional claims (see App. Br. 19-20).
We also find no error in the Examiner’s rejections of the remaining claims
on appeal because Appellant did not set forth any separate and different
patentability arguments for them (see id. at 20-22).

Appeal 2011-006148
Application 11/068,865

6
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-31 as
anticipated by and obvious over the applied references.
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).

AFFIRMED

llw