Ex Parte Smith et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201411843713 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SAMUEL JONATHAN SMITH, JOHN COLGRAVE, and MANFRED OEVERS ____________ Appeal 2012-007106 Application 11/843,713 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-007106 Application 11/843,713 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 2, 4–8, 10, 12–17, 19, and 21–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to accessing objects in an object repository. Abstract. Independent claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 2. A method of managing an object database for objects, comprising: receiving a database path query; translating the database path query into an object query; and querying the object database using the object query, wherein the translating comprises: breaking the path query into nodes; examining each node to identify objects for selection and objects from which selection is made; consolidating objects for selection from each node; consolidating objects from which selection is made; and forming the object query from a SELECT clause made up of the consolidated objects for selection from each node and from a FROM clause made up of the consolidated objects from which selection is made. Appeal 2012-007106 Application 11/843,713 3 REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Liu (US Pub. 2006/0031233 A1, Feb. 9, 2006). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 6–8, 14–16, and 22–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu and Helgeson (US Pub. 2002/0049749 A1, Apr. 25, 2002). ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Liu teaches the limitations of “translating the database path query into an object query” and “breaking the path query into nodes” as recited in claim 2. ANALYSIS Claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 21, and 25 Appellants argue that an SQL query is different from an object query (Br. 9). Appellants assert that Enosys (U.S. Patent No. 7,028,028), cited in the Background of their Specification, states that the “relational database query language such as SQL . . . does not return complex collection of objects as an object query language can,” thereby providing evidence that an SQL query is different than an “object query” (Br. 9–10). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and we add the following primarily for emphasis. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the cited section by Appellants implies that an object query language is a more powerful way of Appeal 2012-007106 Application 11/843,713 4 retrieving objects than a relational query language (i.e., SQL) as opposed to stating that a relational query language cannot represent an object query or retrieve objects (Ans. 13). We further agree with the Examiner (Ans. 13–14) that Liu teaches re-writing XQuery/Xpath queries into SQL queries in order to return objects (see ¶¶ 20, 22, 24, 66, 73, and Fig. 3). Appellants further argue that the claim language requires that the path of the query be converted to nodes, whereas the teaching of Liu (¶ 73) is to convert a user-defined type to an xml data type (Br. 10–11). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 14) that Liu teaches “a universal format for a type representation of type structure of XML Type instances that are generated in various ways from various data sources, SQL expressions and queries, and storage mechanisms” (¶ 39). This format or type representation is referred to as an XML Type tree represented as a hierarchy of nodes forming a tree (¶ 39; Ans. 14). Thus, Liu teaches a query being broken into nodes forming a tree (see Ans. 14–15; see also Liu ¶ 72). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 2 and for the same reason the rejections of claims 10 and 19. We also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 17, 21, and 25 for the same reasons as no additional arguments were presented with respect to these claims. Claims 6-8, 14-16, and 22-24 Appellants do not present any additional arguments with respect to claims 6–8, 14–16, and 22–24 (see Br. 12). Accordingly, also we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Appeal 2012-007106 Application 11/843,713 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Liu teaches the limitations of “translating the database path query into an object query” and “breaking the path query into nodes” as recited in claim 2. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 4–8, 10, 12–17, 19, and 21–25 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). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation