Ex Parte Trevor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

12607804 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/607,804 10/28/2009 Jonathan Trevor
76133 7590 02/17/2016
MPG, LLP AND YAHOO! INC
710 LAKEWAY DRIVE
SUITE 200
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Y AHOP094-Y05808USOO 5227
EXAMINER
CHEEMA, AZAM M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN TREVOR, JOSHUA GORDINEER,
SAM PULLARA, PAUL DONNELLY,
and NAGESH SUSARLA
Appeal2013-004009
Application 12/607,804
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2013-004009
Application 12/607,804
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-16, 21, and 22. Claims 6, 9, 17-20,
and 23-25 have been indicated as being allowable if rewritten in
independent form and including the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. Claims 26-30 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis added to
the disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:
1. A system for querying web data, comprising:
a web data source including data to be queried;
a query language (QL) web service computing platform
configured to provide a QLweb service defined to expose a QL for
specification of the web data source including data to be queried and
one or more operations to be performed on the \'l1eb data source,
wherein requirements specific to the web data source for accessing
and performing operations on the web data source are abstracted
through the exposed QL; and
a computer readable data storage medium having data for a QL
table stored thereon, the QL table associated with the web data source,
wherein the QL table is accessible through a universal resource
locator (URL), and wherein the QL table includes binding data which
binds the web data source to the QL web service, the binding data
providing instructions to the QL web service as to how the QL web
service should interface with the web data source and interact with
the web data source in order to query the web data source for specific
data present at the web data source.
Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-16, and 21 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Schwartz (US 2002/0073089
2
Appeal2013-004009
Application 12/607,804
Al; published June 13, 2002) and Li (US 6,591,266 Bl; issued July 8,
2003). Final Act. 3-8; Ans. 3-9.
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 22 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Schwartz, Li, andKotcheff(US 7,165,080 B2; issued
Jan. 16, 2007. Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 9-10.
Principal Issue on Appeal1
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-13)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2---6), the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-16, and 21 as
being obvious over the combination of Schwartz and Li because the
combination fails to teach or suggest
[T]he QL table includes binding data which binds the
web data source to the QL web service, the binding data
providing instructions to the QL web service as to how the QL
web service should interface with the web data source and
interact with the web data source in order to query the web data
source for specific data present at the web data source,
as recited in representative independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in
independent claim 16?
1 Appellants present detailed arguments on the merits only with respect to
claim 1 (App. Br. 5-12; Reply Br. 2---6). Appellants rely on the arguments
presented for claim 1 as to the patentability of remaining independent claim
16, which contains similar features (App. Br. 12). Accordingly, we select
claim 1 as representative of the group of claims (claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-16,
and 21) rejected for obviousness over the combination of Schwartz and Li.
With regard to the rejection of claim 22 over the combination of
Schwartz, Li, and Kotcheff, Appellants rely on the arguments already
presented with respect to representative claim 1, (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br.
6).
3
Appeal2013-004009
Application 12/607,804
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-9; Ans. 3-
10) in light of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-13)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2---6) that the Examiner has erred, as well as
the Examiner's response (Ans. 11-12) to Appellants' arguments in the
Appeal Brief. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt
as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-9; Ans. 3-10), and (2)
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response
to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 11-12). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of
Appellants' arguments as follows.
We agree with the Examiner as to representative claim 1 (Ans. 3--4
and 11-12) that Schwartz (i-fi-f 28-29 and 37) teaches or suggests the entirety
of claim 1 except for the binding data providing instructions to the QL web
service as to how the QL web service should interface with the web data
source and interact with the web data source in order to query the web data
source for specific data present at the web data source, which portion is
taught by Li (Fig. 3B; col. 8, 11. 13-35).
The Examiner has also provided a rational underpinning as to why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
web data querying system of Schwartz with the binding data instructions of
Li because doing so would have provided the added benefit of a system for
4
Appeal2013-004009
Application 12/607,804
updating Web pages or servers based on a modification of data stored in a
database management system.
In light of our agreement with the Examiner's findings, Appellants'
contentions that the combination of Schwartz and Li fail to teach or suggest
the QL table includes binding data which binds the web data source to the
QL web service, the binding data providing instructions to the QL web
service as to how the QL web service should interface with the web data
source and interact with the web data source in order to query the web data
source for specific data present at the web data source as set forth in
representative independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent
claim 16, are not persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-16, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For similar
reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's remaining obviousness rejection of
claim 22 (which has not been separately argued).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-16,
and 21 as being obvious over the base combination of Schwartz and Li
because the combination teaches or suggests
[T]he QL table includes binding data which binds the
web data source to the QL web service, the binding data
providing instructions to the QL web service as to how the QL
web service should interface with the web data source and
interact with the web data source in order to query the web data
source for specific data present at the web data source,
as set forth in representative independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in
independent claim 16.
5
Appeal2013-004009
Application 12/607,804
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 22 as being obvious
over the combination of Schwartz, Li, and Kotcheff because the combination
teaches or suggests the "specified format is an XML format, wherein the
XML format specifies XML elements as rows in a tabular results data
arrangement and specifies XML sub-elements or XML attributes as columns
in the tabular results data arrangement," as recited in claim 22.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-16, 21, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6