Ex Parte Shan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 16, 2009

10814715 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 16, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ERIC Y. SHAN, FABIO CASATI, MARIA GUADALUPE
CASTELLANOS, and MING-CHIEN SHAN
____________________

Appeal 2009-004057
Application 10/814,7151
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: November 16, 2009
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed March 31, 2004. The real party in interest is Hewlett Packard
Development Co.
Appeal 2009-004057
Application 10/814,715

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 8, 18 and 25. Claims 2 through 7, 9 through 17, 19 through 24,
and 26 through 30 have been objected for being dependent upon a rejected
claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include the
limitation of the base claim and any other intervening claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
As shown in Figure 2, Appellants invented a method and system for
using one of a plurality of methods to load data from a vertical database
table (202) into a horizontal database table (204). (Spec. para. [0018] -
[0022].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
A processor-implemented method for loading data from a
vertical database table into a horizontal database table, comprising:

determining a number of rows in a vertical database table and a
number of columns in a horizontal database table, wherein the vertical
table includes at least three columns, with entries in a first column
containing object identifiers, entries in a second column containing
attribute names corresponding to the object identifiers, and entries in a
third column containing attribute values corresponding to the attribute
Appeal 2009-004057
Application 10/814,715

3
names, and the horizontal table includes a column for the object
identifiers and attribute columns for the attributes names;

selecting one of a plurality of methods for reading data from the
vertical database table and writing data to the horizontal database
table based in part on the number of rows in the vertical database table
and the number of columns in the horizontal database table; and

reading object identifiers and values of attributes from the
vertical database table and writing the object identifiers and the values
of attributes to the vertical database table using the selected one of the
plurality of methods.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:

Agrawal 6,763,350 Jul. 13, 2004

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1, 8, 18, and 25 stand rejected as being anticipated by Agrawal.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Agrawal does not teach selecting one of a
plurality of methods for converting a vertical database table into a horizontal
database table, as recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 4-8.) According
to Appellants, while Agrawal discloses two strategies for transforming a
database table from horizontal to vertical and vice-versa, neither strategy
Appeal 2009-004057
Application 10/814,715

4
involves selecting one of a plurality of methods for reading data from the
vertical database table and writing data to the horizontal database table based
in part on the number of rows in the vertical table and the number of
columns in the horizontal database table, as required by the claim. (Id. at 5.)
Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner finds that Agrawal’s disclosure of using the V2h (Ώ)
operation or Ώk (v) operation teaches selecting one of a plurality of methods
to transform a vertical database table into a horizontal database table. (Ans.
5-8.)

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Agrawal teaches selecting one of a plurality of methods to transform a
vertical database table into a horizontal database table, as recited in
independent claim 1?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Agrawal
1. Agrawal discloses a method and system for generating a
horizontal view for SQL queries processed against a vertical database table.
(Abstract.)
Appeal 2009-004057
Application 10/814,715

5
2. As shown in Figure 2, Agrawal discloses a v2h operator or a
v2h(Ώ) operation for converting the attributes of a vertical database table
into corresponding attributes for a horizontal database table. (Col. 2, ll. 36-
42, col. 5, ll. 11-13.)
3. Agrawal discloses another operation Ώk (v) for converting the
attributes of the vertical database table into corresponding attributes for the
horizontal database table of arity k+1. (Col. 5, ll. 14-26.)

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)).
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at
issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc.,
190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted.) “In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to
exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is
anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the
prior art.” Id.
Appeal 2009-004057
Application 10/814,715

6

V. CLAIM GROUPING
Appellants argue the patentability of claim 1 in conjunction with the
rejection of claims 1, 8, 18 and 25. In accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we will consider all the claims on appeal as standing and
falling with representative claim 1.

VI. ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires in relevant part selecting one of a
plurality of methods to transform a vertical database table into a horizontal
database table.
As set forth in the Findings of Fact section, Agrawal discloses using a
vh2 (Ώ) operation or a Ώk (v) operation for transforming attributes of a
vertical database table into attributes of a horizontal database table. (FF. 2-
3.) We find that by transforming attributes of the vertical database table into
corresponding ones for a horizontal database table using either of the cited
operations, Agrawal teaches selecting one of the two operations to perform
the transformation. Since the claimed plurality of methods generally refers
to two or more methods, we agree with the Examiner that Agrawal’s
disclosure of the two operations teaches the disputed limitations. It follows
that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Agrawal anticipates claim 1.

Appeal 2009-004057
Application 10/814,715

7
VII. CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 8, 18, and 25 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

VIII. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 8, 18, and 25.
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

dal/nhl

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528