Ex Parte Sykes

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2011

10160922 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte HOWARD SYKES
____________________

Appeal 2009-014161
Application 10/160,922
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: DENISE M. POTHIER, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014161
Application 10/160,922

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-16, 18-22, 24-25, 27-31, 33-34, and 36-372, the
only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellant invented a method for determining product
configurations which meet varied performance requirements. Specification
1:1-3.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A method comprising the steps of:
(A) providing an up-to-date relational database having meta-
data which reflects the current structure of the relational
database and accessible by product attributes wherein an access
to any given product attribute returns attribute associated data;
(B) querying the relational database for the meta-data and
generating a requirements dialog for customer input as a
function of the meta-data which reflects the current structure of
the relational database;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jan. 29, 2007), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jun.
18, 2007), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Apr. 18, 2006).
2 The Examiner has cancelled claims 5, 8, 14, 17, 23, 26, 32, and 35
pursuant to Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478 (BPAI 2008) (precedential)
because Appellant has not presented any arguments in support of
patentability. See Miscellaneous Communication to the Appellant mailed
Aug. 19, 2009.
Appeal 2009-014161
Application 10/160,922

3
(C) accepting customer input data indicating customer
requirements;
(D) converting the customer requirements to a set of underlying
basics wherein the underlying basics are associated with the
product attributes; and
(E) accessing the relational database based on the underlying
basics and generating a recommendation for customer
presentation containing at least one configured product which
meets the customer requirements.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Wyman
Yeager
US 5,204,897
US 5,950,190
Apr. 20, 1993
Sep. 7, 1999

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-16, 18-22, 24-25, 27-31, 33-34, and 36-37
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being anticipated by Yeager. Ans.
3-5.

ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 6-7,
9-13, 15-16, 18-22, 24-25, 27-31, 33-34, and 36-37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Yeager turns on whether Yeager describes
limitation (D) of claim 1.

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Appeal 2009-014161
Application 10/160,922

4
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Yeager
01. Yeager is directed to a new and improved graphical interface
which allows an end user to query and edit the contents of the
relational database management system (RDBMS) as well as alter
the design or structure of the underlying relational database.
Yeager 1:15-19.
02. The interface includes a search window that allows end users to
compose simple or complex queries for the tables within the
database. Yeager 9:63-67 and Fig. 4. The interface defines a
number of rows having parameter buttons which correspond to the
different columns from the tables. Yeager 10:11-14 and Fig. 4.
The search window also allows for a number of different
mathematical operators to be associated with the search terms
entered in the different input fields. Yeager 10:31-33 and Fig. 4.
03. Once the search query is formulated, the execution of the query
is done in two parts. Yeager 11:11-13. First, the interface
converts the logical query input by the user to corresponding
structured query language (SQL) commands. Yeager 11:13-15.
Next, the database processes the SQL commands in a
conventional fashion. Yeager 11:15-17.

Appeal 2009-014161
Application 10/160,922

5
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-16, 18-22, 24-25, 27-31, 33-34, and 36-37
rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being anticipated by Yeager
The Appellant contends that Yeager fails to describe converting a set
of requirements to a set of underlying basics that are associated with product
attribute data, as required by limitation (D) of claim 1. App. Br. 6-9. The
Appellant specifically argues that the Examiner has unreasonably construed
the term “underlying basics” impermissibly broad. App. Br. 8-9.
We disagree with the Appellant. In construing the metes and bounds
of a term, we first look to the context of the claim for limitations. Limitation
(D) only requires converting customer requirements to “underlying basics”
and the “underlying basics” are associated with product attributes. The
claims fail to narrow the scope of this term beyond these limitations. As
such, the claims allow for a broad construction of “underlying basics.”
Next we review the Specification to determine whether any broad
construction would be unreasonably incompatible with the way the term is
used. We look for any definition of “underlying basics.” The Specification
provides examples of “underlying basics” but fails to set forth a specific
definition of the term. The Specification describes “underlying basics” to
encompass part specifications and subassembly characteristics, such as
estimated performance ratings and CPU speed. Specification 7:13-17.
In the absence of a specific definition and in light of the description in
the Specification, we find that a broad construction of the term “underlying
basics” is reasonable and consistent with its usage in the Specification. The
Examiner constructed “underlying basics” to encompass specific
information about a particular product. Ans. 4 and 6. We find that this
Appeal 2009-014161
Application 10/160,922

6
construction is both reasonable and consistent with the Specification. As
such, the limitation to convert customer requirements to underlying basics
encompasses converting customer inputs into language understood and
contained in a database.
Yeager describes an interface for a relational database. FF 01. The
interface includes a search window that defines a number of rows having
parameter buttons which correspond to the different columns from the
tables. FF 02. The interface converts the logical query input by the user to
corresponding SQL commands. FF 03. These facts are not disputed by the
Appellant. App. Br. 7-8.
As such, the user queries are customer requirements. Table columns
are product attribute data3. The user queries are converted to information
that is compatible with the database (i.e., SQL commands). As such, we
find that Yeager describes converting a set of requirements to a set of
underlying basics that are associated with product attribute data and,
therefore, Yeager anticipates claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-16, 18-22, 24-25, 27-
31, 33-34, and 36-37.
The Appellant further argues that Yeager fails to describe a
conversion from a customer-centric vocabulary to a vendor-centric
vocabulary. App. Br. 9. However, as discussed supra, we find no such

3 The Specification also describes Structured Query Language (SQL)
database products, where database design components are arranged in
columns, or database products which are accessed by attribute type where
such access returns the associated attribute values. Specification 5:1-4. We
find that this disclosure in Appellant’s Specification further reinforces the
Examiner’s position that Yeager’s disclosure of the interface converting the
logical query input by the user in the search window to corresponding SQL
commands describes limitation (D) of claim 1. Ans. 6-7.
Appeal 2009-014161
Application 10/160,922

7
limitation or requirement in the claim language. As such, we find the
Appellant’s argument unpersuasive.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-16, 18-
22, 24-25, 27-31, 33-34, and 36-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Yeager.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-16, 18-22, 24-25, 27-31, 33-
34, and 36-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Yeager is sustained.

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) (2009).

AFFIRMED

msc