Ex Parte Tolsma

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 15, 2002

09207420 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 15, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DOUWE FOLKERT TOLSMA
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1897
Application No. 09/207,420
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, DIXON, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claims 1-5. The appellant appeals therefrom under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We affirm-in-part.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue concerns data structures for data relating to entities that
"may or may not be known beforehand." (Spec. at 1.) According to the appellant, a
data structure called a "relational database" has been used to manage such data
heretofore. (Id.) Data in such a database are stored in tables wherein a relation can be
made between respective fields of different tables to express a correspondence.
Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 2
Application No. 09/207,420
Because the relations established in the data structure require that linked records in
linked tables are completed before such a correspondence can be expressed, explains
the appellant, a relational database is too rigid to model a physical reality in which
organizations change continually and data are supplied at random times. (Id.)
In contrast, the appellant's inventive data structure is dynamic "in the sense that
no demands are made on the time sequence in which data [are] processed and
organizational expansion and other changes can be accommodated without difficulty
and often without any appreciable adaptation of . . . software." (Appeal Br. at 2.) More
specifically, data are stored in a dynamic structure which for every entity provides space
for a unique identifier, a first set of pointers to subordinate entities, and a second set of
pointers to superior entities. Within the data structure, "a status message related to an
entity is likewise valid for all subordinate entities and, hence, for all subordinate entities
of these subordinate entities and so on until the bottom of the structure is reached." (Id.
at 3-4.)
A further understanding of the invention can be achieved by reading the following
claim.
1. Device for managing data relating to entities which may or may
not be known beforehand, comprising a central processing unit which,
supplied with a suitable program code, is capable of receiving and storing
the data in the form of status messages relating to one or more entities,
characterized in that the data is stored in a dynamic structure which for
each entity provides space for a unique identification and for a first
Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 3
Application No. 09/207,420
collection of references to possible subordinate entities and a second
collection of references to superior entities such that a status message
relating to an entity is likewise valid for each subordinate entity associated
with the relevant entity by means of its first collection.
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by U.S.
Patent No. 5,608,907 (“Fehskens”).
OPINION
At the outset, we recall that claims that are not argued separately stand or fall
together. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(citing In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)). When the
patentability of a dependent claim is not argued separately, in particular, the claim
stands or falls with the claim from which it depends. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325,
231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217
USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ 67, 70
(CCPA 1979)).
Here, rather than arguing the patentability of dependent claims 2 or 5 separately,
the appellant asserts that "[b]y virtue of their dependency from claim 1, [the] claims . . .
implicitly recite the above-described feature, and are therefore similarly unanticipated
by the applied reference." (Appeal Br. at 6.) He also stipulates, "[t]he claims stand or
Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 4
Application No. 09/207,420
fall together” (Id. at 3). Therefore, claims 2 and 5 stand or fall with representative
claim 1.
With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the
examiner or the appellant in toto, we address the three points of contention
therebetween. First, the examiner asserts, "[d]efinition of a global or top-level entity
and the definition of a subordinate entity are discussed in Fehskens. . . . The global
entity and subordinate entity in Fehskens are related in [a] hierarchical relationship."
(Examiner's Answer at 7.) The appellant argues, "the applied reference clearly fails to
disclose at least the recited feature of space within each entity for a first collection of
references to subordinate entities." (Appeal Br. at 5-6.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 5
Application No. 09/207,420
Here, representative claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"a dynamic structure which for each entity provides space . . . for a first collection of
references to possible subordinate entities and a second collection of references to
superior entities. . . ." Giving the representative claim its broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require a collection of references to superior entities and a
collection of references to possible subordinate entities.
"[H]aving ascertained exactly what subject matter is being claimed, the next
inquiry must be into whether such subject matter is novel." In re Wilder, 429 F2d 447,
450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). “[A]nticipation is a question of fact.” Hyatt,
211 F.3d at 1371, 54 USPQ2d at 1667 (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.)
812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431
(Fed. Cir. 1997)). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d
1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co.,
749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck
& Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 6
Application No. 09/207,420
Here, Fehskens discloses a "management specification for an entity. . . ."
Col. 16, l. 51. The appellant admits that the reference's management specification
includes a collection of references to superior entities. To wit, he states "[a]s is clear . .
. , the mechanism provided by the applied reference provides for each entity definition
to identify superior entities. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 5.) For its part, Fehskens confirms that,
"[i]f the entity definition is for a subordinate entity, it has a superior field 50 which
identifies the superior entities in the hierarchy." Col. 17 at ll. 31-33.
We find, furthermore, that reference's management specification also includes a
collection of references to possible subordinate entities. Specifically, "the body
portion 53 of a management specification includes . . . a subordinate entity list 57, if
the entity class contains any subordinate entities. If the body portion 53 includes a
subordinate entity list 57, each item in the subordinate entity list 57 comprises an entity
definition 46 (FIG. 3A), with the name field 47 including 'SUBORDINATE'." Id. at ll.
57-65 (emphasis added). Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2
and 5, which fall therewith.
Second, the examiner asserts, "[t]he unique identification of an entity as a
superior or subordinate is also disclosed in Fehskens." (Examiner's Answer at 8.) He
explains, "[a]n entity definition 46 includes a name field 47 that includes a name and a
code by which the entity can be identified. In addition, the name field 47 identifies the
Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 7
Application No. 09/207,420
entity as a global or subordinate entity and identifies a class name for the entity
(column 17, lines 25 - 33)." (Id.) The appellant argues, "[a]bsent from . . . the reference
is the disclosure of any mechanism for unique identification of an entity through the
designation of an organizational unit and a coding, with such coding further defined as
being unique within the organizational unit." (Appeal Br. at 6-7.)
Claim 3 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "an entity is uniquely
identified by a designation of an organizational unit within which the entity exists
together with a coding which is unique at least within said organizational unit." Giving
the claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require a designation of
an organizational unit within which an entity exists and a code that is unique at least
within the organizational unit.
The appellant admits that the passage cited by the examiner "describes a name
field 47 that includes a name and a code by which the entity can be identified." (Appeal
Br. at 6.) For its part, Fehskens confirms that "[a]n entity definition 46 includes a name
field 47 that includes a name and a code by which the entity can be identified." Col. 17,
ll. 28-30. "In addition, the name field 47 identifies the entity as a global or subordinate
entity and identifies a class name for the entity." Id. at ll. 30-32. Because the
reference's class name designates the class of the entity, we find that the class name
designates the organizational unit within which the entity exists. Because Fehskens'
Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 8
Application No. 09/207,420
code allows an entity to be identified, moreover, we also find that the code is unique at
least within the organizational unit, viz., the class. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claim 3.
Third, the examiner asserts, "[a]s to claim 4, at least one conditional statement is
linked to one or more entities in the structure, which statement results in the outcome
provided therein as soon as the set condition is fulfilled (column 17, lines 31-38)." The
appellant argues, "it is unclear how this or any other passage of the applied reference
discloses at least one conditional statement linked to one or more entities in the
structure, with such statement resulting in the outcome provided therein as soon as the
set condition is fulfilled." (Appeal Br. at 7.)
Claim 4 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "at least one
conditional statement is linked to one or more entities in the structure, which statement
results in the outcome provided therein as soon as the set condition is fulfilled." Giving
the claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require at least one
conditional statement, which results in an outcome specified therein when a specified
condition is fulfilled, linked to at least one entity.
"[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation."
Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed.
Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 9
Application No. 09/207,420
Cir. 1986). Here, we agree with the appellant that the passage of Fehskens cited by
the examiner "describes various fields within an entity definition. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 7.)
The examiner fails to show, however, that any of the fields constitutes a conditional
statement, which results in an outcome specified therein when a specified condition is
fulfilled, linked to at least one entity. The absence of such a showing negates
anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 4.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under § 102(e) is affirmed. The
rejection of claim 4 under § 102(e), however, is reversed. "Any arguments or
authorities not included in the brief[s] will be refused consideration by the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a) (2002). Accordingly, our
affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the briefs. Any arguments or
authorities not included therein are neither before us nor at issue but are considered
waived. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2002).
Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 10
Application No. 09/207,420
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 11
Application No. 09/207,420
YOUNG & THOMPSON
745 SOUTH 23RD STREET 2ND FLOOR
ARLINGTON , VA 22202
LLB/jlb
APPEAL NO. 2002-1897 - JUDGE BARRY
APPLICATION NO. 09/207,420
APJ BARRY - 2 copies
APJ DIXON
APJ THOMAS
After signing, return to APJ Barry for disk.
After APJ Barry provides disk, forward to Team 3 for
entering changes and mailing.

Prepared By: APJ BARRY
DRAFT SUBMITTED: 12 Feb 04
FINAL TYPED:
Team 3:
I typed all of this opinion.
Please proofread spelling, cites, and quotes. Mark your proposed changes on the
opinion, but do NOT change matters of form or style. I will include the diskette
with the signed copy so that you can make all changes before mailing.
For any additional reference provided, please prepare PTO 892 and include copy of
references
Thanks, Judge Barry