Ex Parte Stout et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 8, 201411772983 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ADAM DAVID STOUT and DAVID EUGENE LOVETT ____________________ Appeal 2011-012376 Application 11/772,983 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL W. KIM, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012376 Application 11/772,983 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM.1 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “a method and system for converting source data files into executable statements in a database query language such as SQL [i.e., Structured Query Language]” (Spec. 2, ll. 2-3). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method of converting source data encapsulated in an extensible language format into executable statements in a database query language comprising: maintaining a library of one or more stylesheets compatible with the extensible language format, the one or more stylesheets configured to identify data elements in the source data that are specified by the stylesheets and to perform one or more transformations specified by the one or more stylesheets on the one or more data elements identified; receiving source data in the extensible language format; applying one or more of the stylesheets from the library to the source data and performing any specified transformations on the source data to convert said source data received in the extensible language format into an executable database query language statement; and 1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed September 15, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 6, 2011). Appeal 2011-012376 Application 11/772,983 3 sending the executable database query language statement to a Database Management System (DBMS). THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Snyder (US 2008/0017722 A1, pub. Jan. 24, 2008) and Ramarao (US 7,409,400 B2, iss. Aug. 5, 2008). ANALYSIS Appellants argue claims 1-7 together (Br. 5-9). We select claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2011). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because neither Synder nor Ramarao, taken singularly or in combination, teaches or suggests “applying one or more of the stylesheets . . . to the source data and performing any specified transformations on the source data to convert said source data received in the extensible language format into an executable database query language statement,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 6-8). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Ramarao teaches this feature (Ans. 4-6 and 9-10). Ramarao discloses an appliance for use with a plurality of servers, and describes that the appliance may receive first output data from a first server to be supplied to a second server; the format of the first output data received from the first server is different from a second, target, format used by the second server. The appliance is, thus, configured to transform the first Appeal 2011-012376 Application 11/772,983 4 output data to a first markup language format, e.g., Extensible Markup Language (“XML”), and to transform the first markup language format to the second format (see Ramarao, col. 1, ll. 55-67). Ramarao describes that a pair of stylesheets may be used for the transformation, one stylesheet that converts from the source format to XML, and another stylesheet that converts from XML to the target, i.e., second, format (see Ramarao, col. 14, ll. 26-33). Appellants assert that “[i]t is not seen that Ramaao [sic] teaches that source data encapsulated in an extensible language format is converted into executable statements in a database query language” (Br. 6). However, Ramarao teaches at column 14, lines 34-53, cited by the Examiner, that a source-to-XML stylesheet may be applied to a source data item to generate one or more XML constructs corresponding to the source data item, i.e., that source data is converted to XML, i.e., an extensible language format. Ramarao also teaches at column 11, lines 36-61, with reference to Figure 4, that the appliance may be coupled to receive requests from an application server, and configured to generate corresponding requests to a Relational Database Management System (“RDBMS”). In this regard, Ramarao describes, at column 11, lines 48-54, that: The request received by the appliance 10 may be in any format. For example, the request may be an XPath expression or expressions, if the application server 58A views the database as an XML database. The appliance 10 may transform the XPath expressions into SQL requests, and may transmit the SQL requests to the RDBMS server 62. The input stylesheet 70 may be used for this transformation. Id. Appeal 2011-012376 Application 11/772,983 5 Appellants argue that XPath “is not an extensible language format” and that, therefore, neither Figure 4 nor the cited portions of column 11 of Ramarao teach or suggest “converting source data encapsulated in an extensible language format into executable statements in a database query language” (Br. 8). That argument is not persuasive. Ramarao describes at column 14, lines 26-30 that the appliance performs the transformation of the output format (i.e., the format used by the first server from which the source data is received) to the input format (i.e., the format used by the second server), “passing through XML as an intermediate format.” Thus, even if XPath, i.e., the output format, cannot properly be considered an extensible language format, Ramarao describes that the output format is converted to XML, i.e., an extensible language format, in an intermediate step, and subsequently converted from XML to the target format which, in the case of an XML database, is SQL format, before being supplied to the RDBMS server. To summarize, Ramarao teaches an appliance configured to: (1) receive first output data, e.g., source data, from a first server to be supplied to a second server; (2) transform the source data to XML; and (3) transform the XML to a second target format, e.g., SQL requests, for use by the second server, e.g., a RDBMS server. Ramarao also teaches that stylesheets may be used by the appliance. As such, Ramarao discloses “applying one or more of the stylesheets . . . to the source data and performing any specified transformations on the source data to convert said source data received in the extensible language format into an executable database query language statement,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2011-012376 Application 11/772,983 6 In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-7, which stand or fall with claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation