Ex Parte Stuhec

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 14, 2011

11087918 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 14, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte GUNTHER STUHEC
____________________

Appeal 2009-014726
Application 11/087,918
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, THU A. DANG,
and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014726
Application 11/087,918

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 9-23 (App. Br. 1). Claims 1-8 have been canceled (id.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a method of specifying data elements
for a context specific data component derived from a context-independent
data type; wherein, the data element is included in a predefined operation
that will be performed on the data component if the harmonization indicator
associated with the data element is set, unless the data type specifically
excludes the data element (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 9 is exemplary:
9. A computer-implemented method of performing a
predefined operation on a data component for a specific
context, the method comprising:

receiving a user input specifying at least one context
value, the user input being made for performing a predefined
operation on a data component for a specific context
characterized by the at least one context value, the data
component being a context specific representation of a
context independent data type;

reading data elements of the context independent data
type in response to the user input, each of the data elements
being (1) configured for defining semantics of data in a
document that is electronically transmitted between entities and
Appeal 2009-014726
Application 11/087,918

3
(2) associated with a harmonization indicator that, when set,
causes the associated data element to be included in performing
the predefined operation unless the context independent data
type explicitly excludes the associated data element for the
specific context, and that, when not set, causes the associated
data element not to be included in performing the predefined
operation unless the context independent data type
explicitly includes the associated data element for the specific
context; and

performing the predefined operation on the data
component based at least in part on a setting of the
harmonization indicator of each of the data elements.

C. REJECTIONS1
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Herbert US 6,018,742 Jan. 25, 2000
Herbert US 6,366,917 B1 Apr. 02, 2002
(hereinafter “Herbert 2”)
Tirpak US 2005/0033719 A1 Feb. 10, 2005

Celko, Joe Celko’s SQL for Smarties: Advance SQL
Programming 12-14, 219-222 (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers,
2nd ed. 2000).

Claims 9-17 and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Herbert in view of Celko.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Herbert in view of Tirpak and Herbert 2.

1 Although Appellant’s brief presents arguments relating to the duplicate
claims objection for claims 9, 22, and 23 (App. Br. 7-10), we find, as noted
by the Examiner, that this objection relates to petitionable subject matter
under 37 CFR § 1.181 and not to appealable subject matter (Ans. 2).
Appeal 2009-014726
Application 11/087,918

4

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Herbert and Celko would have
suggested “reading data elements of the context independent data type in
response to the user input, each of the data elements being (1) configured for
defining semantics of data in a document that is electronically transmitted
between entities and (2) associated with a harmonization indicator that,
when set, causes the associated data element to be included in performing
the predefined operation unless the context independent data type explicitly
excludes the associated data element for the specific context, and that, when
not set, causes the associated data element not to be included in performing
the predefined operation unless the context independent data type explicitly
includes the associated data element for the specific context” (claim 9,
emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Celko
1. Celko discloses advanced SQL programming techniques
including a CREATE TABLE command that creates a table having table
elements (pp.12-13).
2. A DEFAULT clause may be used to set the value of table
elements whenever the system does not have an explicit value to put into a
column of a table (pp. 13-14).
Appeal 2009-014726
Application 11/087,918

5

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 9-17 and 19-23
Appellant contends that “‘table.a, table.b, table.c, table.d, etc.’ are
examples provided by the Examiner, not by the cited reference” (App. Br.
11). Appellant argues that “[n]othing in the cited reference discloses or
suggests the following clause of claim 9: ‘each of the data elements being
(2) associated with a harmonization indicator that, when set, causes the
associated data element to be included in performing the predefined
operation’” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that “the CREATE TABLE statement
creates a table with table elements”; wherein, “[t]he data elements in the
table created by Celko correspond to the data elements in the claim
language” (Ans.19). The Examiner finds further that “[w]henever the
system does not have an explicit value to put into a data element, the system
will look for the DEFAULT clause and insert that value”; wherein, the
“DEFAULT clause corresponds to the harmonization indicator” (id.). The
Examiner notes that “[s]etting the DEFAULT clause to a particular data
element will cause that data element to be included in any predefined
operations,” e.g., “if data element table.a was assigned the value ‘Y’ and a
clause was created that stated, WHERE table.a is equal to ‘Y,’ then include
element table.a in a predefined operation, element, table.a would be included
because the value of table.a is ‘Y’” and “if element table.a is not equal to ‘Y'
it would not be included” (id.).
In Reply Brief, Appellant contends that “the DEFAULT clause is not
a harmonization indicator because it does not have the ability to be set or to
Appeal 2009-014726
Application 11/087,918

6
not be set, and the DEFAULT clause does not perform either or both of the
‘when set’ function and the ‘when not set’ function as claimed.” (Reply Br.
6).
Celko is directed to advanced SQL programming techniques including
a CREATE TABLE command that creates a table having table elements (FF
1). A DEFAULT clause may be used to set the value of table elements
whenever the system does not have an explicit value to put into a column of
a table (FF 2).
Though the Examiner provides examples, as noted supra, wherein
table.a is set to “Y” (Ans. 19), these examples are not explicitly supported
by Celko. That is, Celko’s DEFAULT clause only has the ability to set the
value of the table element or data element (FF 2). The sections of Celko
cited by the Examiner are silent with reference to the DEFAULT clause that,
when set, includes the data element within a predefined operation to be
performed on a table (data component) or, when not set, excludes the data
element from the predefined operation.
In particular, we agree with Appellant that there is no teaching or
suggestion of providing “a harmonization indicator” in the sections of Celko
cited by the Examiner, as specifically required by claim 9. We find that
Herbert also does not cure this deficiency of Celko.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Herbert
in view of Celko and claims 10-17 and 19-21, depending from claim 9,
which have been grouped therewith. Claims 22 and 23 recite similar
limitations with respect to claim 9. Therefore, we find that Appellant has
Appeal 2009-014726
Application 11/087,918

7
shown that the Examiner has also erred in rejecting independent claims 22
and 23.
Claim 18
As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of claim 9 from which
claim18 depends. We have reviewed Tirpak and Herbert 2 (the additional
references applied by the Examiner to reject this claim) and find that none of
the cited references teaches the limitations deemed to be absent from Celko.
We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claim 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons expressed with respect to the rejection of
parent claim 9, supra.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
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).

REVERSED

peb