Ex Parte Soria et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 8, 2010

09960769 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte STEVEN SORIA JR., DONALD ALLAN WEIL, GERALD
EDWARD KOZINA, CHENHUEI J. CHIANG, LYNDA ARNOLD
HANSEN, MAYANK VIPIN SHAH, and THOMAS S. LEE
____________________

Appeal 2009-004280
Application 09/960,769
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: March 8, 2010
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, THU A. DANG, and CAROLYN D.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-004280
Application 09/960,769

I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-
43 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Claim 9 is canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, “[t]he present invention pertains to data
management systems and, in particular, to a system, method, and article of
manufacture for providing data versioning support for data management
systems” (Spec. 1, ll. 6-8).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below:

1. A method for supporting versioning of data in a
content management system, said method comprising:

maintaining a first table for storing an identifier of a most
recent version of a data item; and

maintaining a second table for storing an identifier of an
older version of said data item,

wherein, when said data item is to be updated, (i) said
second table is updated to include said identifier of said most
recent version of said data from said first table, and (ii) said
first table is updated to identify a new version of said data item.

2
Appeal 2009-004280
Application 09/960,769

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Schwartz US 2002/0073089 A1 Jun. 13, 2002
Duvillier US 2002/0103815 A1 Aug. 1, 2002
Akkary US 6,591,342 B1 Jul. 8, 2003
Sinander WO 99108206 Feb. 18, 1999

Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17-22, 24, 25, 27-29, 31-36, 38, 39, 41, and
42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sinander.
Claims 7, 23, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sinander in view of Akkary.
Claims 11, 26, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sinander in view of Duvillier.
Claims 16, 30, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sinander in view of Schwartz.

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Sinander’s
systemtable teaches the “data item,” “first table,” and “second table” of
claim 1, “wherein, when said data item is to be updated, (i) said second table
is updated to include said identifier of said most recent version of said data
from said first table, and (ii) said first table is updated to identify a new
version of said data item”?
3
Appeal 2009-004280
Application 09/960,769

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Sinander
1) Sinander discloses a method for upgrading a database (p. 5, l.
1).
2) During upgrading, a “systemtable” holds references to old and
new versions of database functions, called “stored procedures,” that are to be
upgraded (i.e. replaced by new versions) (p. 6, ll. 20-24; p. 7, ll. 1-4).
3) The systemtable includes four columns with the following
entries for each stored procedure: “name of stored procedure known to the
system” (e.g., “sp_a”), “base version” (e.g., “sp_a_1.0”), “target version”
(e.g., “sp_a_1.1”), and “upgrade version” (e.g., “sp_a_upgr”) (p. 7, ll. 10-
22).
4) The “base version” (e.g., “sp_a_1.0”) of a stored procedure is
the currently accepted and used version (p. 7, ll. 23-35).
5) The “target version” (e.g., “sp_a_1.1”) of a stored procedure is
the new version to be added by an upgrade (p. 8, ll. 4-6).
6) The “upgrade version” (e.g., “sp_a_upgr”) of a stored
procedure is used, during the upgrade process, to update new and old tables
for data (p. 8, ll. 9-12).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
4
Appeal 2009-004280
Application 09/960,769

claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
“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). “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. (citations omitted).

V. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102
As to independent claim 1, Appellants acknowledge that the target
version and base version columns of Sinander’s systemtable can be regarded
as separate tables, but argue that they do not teach the recited “first table”
and “second table” because Sinander “does not teach that the base version
column is updated from the target version column” (App. Br. 13; emphasis
omitted).
The Examiner finds that Sinander teaches the recited “first table” and
“second table” by way of updating the systemtable’s base version and target
version columns (Ans. 10).
Thus, an issue we address on appeal is whether Appellants have
shown the Examiner erred in finding that Sinander’s systemtable teaches the
“data item,” “first table” and ‘second table” of claim 1, “wherein, when said
data item is to be updated, (i) said second table is updated to include said
identifier of said most recent version of said data from said first table, and
(ii) said first table is updated to identify a new version of said data item.”
5
Appeal 2009-004280
Application 09/960,769

Sinander discloses a method for upgrading a database (FF 1). During
upgrading, a “systemtable” (reproduced below) holds “references” to both
old and new versions of database functions, called “stored procedures,” that
will also be upgraded (FF 2). The systemtable has four columns that provide
the following entries for each stored procedure: “name of stored procedure
known to the system,” “base version,” “target version,” and “upgrade
version” (FF 3). The “base version” (e.g., “sp_a_1.0”) is the currently
accepted and used version (FF 4). The “target version” (e.g., “sp_a_1.1”) is
the new version to be added by the upgrade (FF 5). The “upgrade version”
(e.g., “sp_a_upgr”) is used, during the upgrade process, to update new and
the old data tables (FF 6).

As acknowledged by Appellants, a skilled artisan would have
understood that the “base version” and “target version” columns of
Sinander’s systemtable are separate tables (App. Br. 13).
The skilled artisan would have also understood that, if a database is
upgraded, the systemtable will reflect that upgrade by changing a stored
6
Appeal 2009-004280
Application 09/960,769

procedure’s “base version” entry to its “target version” entry (e.g., from
“sp_a_1.0” to “sp_a_1.1”); and by changing the stored procedure’s “target
version” entry to show the next version to be added (e.g., from “sp_a_1.1” to
“sp_a_1.2”). Thus, the skilled artisan would have understood Sinander’s
“target version” column as being a “first table ... updated to identify a new
version of said data item” (i.e., to identify the next stored procedure version
to be added); and Sinander’s “base version” column as being a “second table
… updated to include said identifier of said most recent version of said data
from said first table” (i.e., updated from the “target version” column to
identify the most recently accepted stored procedure version).
For the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Sinander teaches the recited “first table” and “second table” (Ans. 10).
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Sinander’s
systemtable teaches the “data item,” “first table,” and “second table” of
claim 1, “wherein, when said data item is to be updated, (i) said second table
is updated to include said identifier of said most recent version of said data
from said first table, and (ii) said first table is updated to identify a new
version of said data item.”
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims
2-6, 8, 10, and 12-15 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Sinander. As Appellants do not provide separate arguments
for independent claims 17 and 31, we also affirm the rejection of claims 17
and 31, and dependent claims 18-22, 24, 25, 27-29, 32-36, 38, 39, 41, and 42
falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sinander.
7
Appeal 2009-004280
Application 09/960,769

35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
As to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Appellants contend that
Akkary, Duvillier, and Schwartz do not “make up for the deficiency of the
Sinander” as it relates to claims 1, 17, and 31 (App. Br. 14-15). However, as
discussed above, we find no deficiency regarding Sinander. As such, we
affirm the rejection of claims 7, 23, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sinander in view of Akkary; the rejection of claims
11, 26, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sinander
in view of Duvillier; and the rejection of claims 16, 30, and 43 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sinander in view of Schwartz.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that claims
1-6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17-22, 24, 25, 27-29, 31-36, 38, 39, 41, and 42 are
anticipated by the teachings of Sinander.
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that claims
7, 23, and 37 are unpatentable over the teachings of Sinander in view of
Akkary.
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that claims
11, 26, and 40 are unpatentable over the teachings of Sinander in view of
Duvillier.
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that claims
16, 30, and 43 are unpatentable over the teachings of Sinander in view of
Schwartz.
8
Appeal 2009-004280
Application 09/960,769

VII. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17-22, 24,
25, 27-29, 31-36, 38, 39, 41, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7, 11, 16, 23, 26, 30, 37, 40,
and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

peb

OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P.
IBM SAN JOSE
1 LANDMARK SQUARE
10TH FLOOR
STEMFORD, CT 06901
9