Ex Parte Skeen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 18, 2004

09206663 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 18, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MARION D. SKEEN
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0319
Application No. 09/206,663
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, GROSS, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all of the
claims pending in this application.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to a real-time decision
support system. An understanding of the invention can be derived
Appeal No. 2003-0319
Application No. 09/206,663
Page 2
from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced as
follows:
1. A computer-implemented real-time decision support system
comprising:
means for receiving complex queries posed by a plurality of
users;
means for providing for each of the queries an executable
query process furnishing a result when data sources satisfy
constraints of the query;
means for providing data sources, the data sources including
an event source;
means for responding to an event furnished by an event
source to initiate execution of all query processes having
constraints satisfied by data sources; and
means for furnishing results of executed query processes to
users.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Risberg et al. (Risberg) 5,339,392 Aug. 16, 1994
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Risberg.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed
August 14, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
Appeal No. 2003-0319
Application No. 09/206,663
Page 3
of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 15, filed
June 28, 2002) for appellant’s arguments thereagainst. 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. See 37
CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant's arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse,
essentially for the reasons set forth by appellant. We begin
with claim 1.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
Appeal No. 2003-0319
Application No. 09/206,663
Page 4
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As stated in In re Oelrich, 666
F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v.
Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939))
(internal citations omitted):
Inherency, however, may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a
certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the
disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural
result flowing from the operation as taught would
result in the performance of the questioned function,
it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should
be regarded as sufficient.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 4) that Risberg does not
disclose the function of responding to an event to execute
processes for all queries having constraints satisfied by a data
source. Appellant further asserts (id.) that Risberg discloses
scripted commands executed in sequence, not concurrently.
Appellant acknowledges (id.) that Risberg discloses an event
driven publish/subscribe architecture similar to the claimed
invention, and notes that in Risberg, scripted commands can be
executed if the data field exceeds a limit. Appellant argues
that as set forth in independent claims 1 and 11, the claimed
invention receives complex queries which are declarative and not
Appeal No. 2003-0319
Application No. 09/206,663
Page 5
programmatic (brief, page 4). Pointing to page 13 of the
specification, appellant asserts that appellant's queries are
structured in Object Query Language (OQL) which includes
declarative statements, but lacks executable commands (brief,
page 5). Appellant argues that Risberg discloses scripts which
are merely display instructions or other executable commands
(brief, page 5). It is further argued that Risberg’s scripts are
executable commands, and these scripts are not queries (brief,
page 5-6). Appellant concurs with the examiner that Risberg
could utilize queries to select desired data, but argues (brief,
page 6) that Risberg fails to disclose responding to an event by
initiating execution of all query processes having constraints
satisfied by the data source. Appellant further disagrees with
examiner’s interpretation of Risberg that an object can be a
query and that a script is an object, and therefore - a script
can be a query (brief, page 6).
The examiner, relying on Fig. 4 and 5, equates Risberg's
reference to queries to the claimed complex queries. The
examiner maintains that Risberg discloses queries responding to
events which execute scripts containing constraints based on data
sources (answer, page 4). Additionally, the examiner asserts
that Risberg discloses constraint indexing and related comparison
Appeal No. 2003-0319
Application No. 09/206,663
Page 6
1
IBM Dictionary of Computing, ©1994, query: (4) A request for information
from a file based on specific conditions; for example, a request for a list of
to yield a set of queries having constraints satisfied by an
event wherein updates from a database are dispatched such as a
stock quote (answer, page 4).
A review of Risberg reveals that the reference relates to a
program application whereby a user, using a collection of layout
tools, can create an application to be displayed.
From our review of Risberg, we find that Risberg discloses a
program whereby a user, using a collection of layout tools may
define an active document (Risberg, col. 2, lines 27-31). The
layout, which will appear on all sheets, will include one to four
margins, headers or footers with text, a common button or a set
of buttons that will display objects with user programmable text
labels, actuated by push buttons (col. 2, lines 15-22). A button
tool can be used to create display objects that will execute
scripted actions when the button is pushed. The scripted actions
are entered by the user in whatever sequence desired (col. 4,
lines 4-7).
From the teachings of Risberg, we find that although Risberg
refers to queries and scripts, that in Risberg, the application
refers to simple queries and to scripts that are executable
commands1 (col. 4, lines 4-8).
Appeal No. 2003-0319
Application No. 09/206,663
Page 7
all customers whose balance is greater than $1000.
IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin NN921158, November 1992. “The user is able
to achieve a very complex query by iteratively combining and refining simple
queries. . ..These combination objects can be further combined with other
combination objects or with simple queries to form more complex queries.”
2 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, ©1994, script: A type of program that
consists of a set of instructions to an application or utility program. A
script usually consists of instructions expressed using the application’s or
utility’s rules and syntax, combined with simple control structures such as
loops and if/then expressions.
From our review of the record, we find that a "complex
query" is a term of art, and we agree with appellant that an
artisan working in the Object Query Language would consider a
complex query to be a declarative specification, and not an
executable command. We take Notice that a script is not a
complex query2. From the examiner's assertion (answer, page 4)
that "Examiner maintains that Risberg discloses such wherein
scripts are user defined commands such as macros which are well
known to be stored persistently as they can be executed by
pressing a button or icon and can be copied" we find that the
scripts of Risberg, which are executable commands, are not
complex queries as set forth in independent claim 1, as the
phrase would be understood by an artisan. Accordingly, we agree
with appellant (brief, pages 4 and 6) that Risberg fails to
disclose "receiving complex queries." In addition, because the
scripts of Risberg are executed sequentially, we find that
Appeal No. 2003-0319
Application No. 09/206,663
Page 8
Risberg does not disclose "means for responding to an event to
initiate execution of all query processes having constraints
satisfied by data sources" since Risberg does not respond to an
event by initiating execution of all query processes having
constraints satisfied by data sources, as recited in claim 1.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 1. The
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-10, dependent therefrom, is
therefore reversed. In addition, as independent claim 11
similarly recites "receiving complex queries" and "responding to
events by executing all query processes having constraints
satisfied by data sources to provide results required by each of
the queries," we find that Risberg does not anticipate
independent claim 11. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11,
and claims 12-20, dependent therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 2003-0319
Application No. 09/206,663
Page 9
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SSL/kis
MARK S. KAUFMAN
NIXON & PEABODY, LLP
8180 GREENSBORO DRIVE
SUITE 800
MCLEAN, VA 22102