Ex Parte Vermette

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 12, 2018

11742957 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/742,957 05/01/2007
51206 7590 10/16/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shane Robert Vermette
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.
88325-723560(033700US) 5817
EXAMINER
STERRETT, JONATHAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
oraclepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte SHANE ROBERT VERMETTE
Appeal2017-008997
Application 11/742,957
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON J. CHUNG, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's non-final rejection of claims 1-29, which represent all the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
February 23, 2017 ("App. Br."), Reply Brief filed June 6, 2017 ("Reply
Br."), the Specification filed May 1, 2007 ("Spec."), the Examiner's Answer
mailed April 6, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Non-Final Rejection mailed June 3,
2016 ("Non-Final Act.").
2 Appellant identifies Oracle International Corporation as the real party in
interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2017-008997
Application 11/742,957
INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to analyzing nested hierarchies by
normalizing a portion of the hierarchy as defined by a limiting factor for the
hierarchy. Spec., Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue and is reproduced below:
1. A method of obtaining information from a nested
hierarchy of data stored in a database, the method comprising:
defining, using a computer processor, levels of the nested
hierarchy of data, wherein the nested hierarchy of data includes
a first hierarchy of data which includes data for a plurality of
projects which includes a first project including a task linking
to a second project which is in a shallower level of the
hierarchy of data than the second project, wherein the nested
hierarchy of data includes a second hierarchy of data which
includes a plurality of tasks, and
wherein each of the plurality of tasks in the second
hierarchy of data can only have one direct ancestor;
assigning each of the plurality of projects to a shallowest
possible level of the nested hierarchy of data in order to
minimize a number of levels of the nested hierarchy of data to
be analyzed and each of the plurality of tasks based on one or
more ancestors of each task;
analyzing the nested hierarchy of data to determine link
data for each of the links between the plurality of projects and
the plurality of tasks;
distinguishing, using the computer processor, data for the
nested hierarchy of data by separately indexing the data of each
level of the nested hierarchy of data;
normalizing, using the computer processor, task data for
each project in a level of the nested hierarchy of data by adding
the determined link data for each of the links between the
plurality of projects and the plurality of tasks to a partially
normalized table, wherein tasks in a level are only normalized if
the tasks are in the same project;
in response to receiving a request for task information for
at least one of the plurality of tasks, for each level in the nested
2
Appeal2017-008997
Application 11/742,957
hierarchy of data, rolling up, using the computer processor, the
normalized task data for each project at a current level;
after rolling up the normalized task data for each project
at the current level, rolling up, using the computer processor,
project data for a project at the current level to any task at a
shallower level that links to that project; and
after rolling up data for the defined levels of the nested
hierarchy of data, reporting, using the computer processor, the
rolled up data in response to the request.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
allegedly directed to non-statutory subject matter. Non-Final Act. 5-13.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 101. App. Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 2--4. The Examiner concludes
the claims are directed to an abstract idea of a way to account for project and
task data. Non-Final Act. 6. The Examiner concludes that the use of a
computer to organize how project and task data is stored and retrieved "does
not provide 'something more' in the way that the computer stores, retrieves,
rolls up or reports the data because these are merely routine and nominal
computer functions without providing 'something more' to make the abstract
idea patent eligible." Id.
Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea of
the hierarchy or the hierarchy itself. Reply Br. 3. Instead, Appellant argues,
the claims are directed to an efficient way to handle the storage and access
of information related to the hierarchy. Id. "Specifically, groupings in the
hierarchy are used to identify how the data table can be partitioned and
3
Appeal2017-008997
Application 11/742,957
partially normalized most efficiently." Reply Br. 3. We agree with
Appellant.
We conclude that Appellant's claims are patent eligible as directed to
a specific improvement ( analyzing nested hierarchies by normalizing a
portion of the hierarchy as defined by a limiting factor for the hierarchy) in a
technological process. Our reviewing court has approved claims of this
general character. See Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Although the Examiner concludes Enfish was directed to a new
data structure and thus differs from the instant claims (Ans. 10), we disagree.
Rather, as Appellant points out, in both Enfzsh and in the claims here, the
way in which the data in the table is interpreted and handled is "a specific
implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts." Enfish, 822
F.3d 1338; Reply Br. 2. In Enfzsh, the data structure itself remained the
same data table as before, but the software surrounding how the table was
accessed was changed to interpret a column entry as a reference to a row.
Id. Similarly, Appellant's claims do not change the actual data structure of
the table, but rather, the software that governs how the data in the data
structure is handled is changed. Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellant's
claims partition the data in the data structure and only partially normalize the
table based on these partitions. Id.; Claim 1 ("normalizing, using the
computer processor, task data for each project in a level of the nested
hierarchy of data by adding the determined link data for each of the links
between the plurality of projects and the plurality of tasks to a partially
normalized table, wherein tasks in a level are only normalized if the tasks
are in the same project"); see also Spec. ,r,r 19, 20. In both Enfzsh and the
claims here, a table is treated differently by a database management system
4
Appeal2017-008997
Application 11/742,957
that governs how data is stored and interpreted in the table. Accordingly, the
claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea.
Similar to the Enfzsh decision, because the claims are not directed to
an abstract idea under step one of the Alice analysis, we need not proceed to
step two of that analysis. The claims here are eligible because they are
directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer analyzing
nested hierarchies by normalizing a portion of the hierarchy as defined by a
limiting factor for the hierarchy.
We note that because the claims are directed narrowly to analyzing
nested hierarchies by normalizing a portion of the hierarchy as defined by a
limiting factor for the hierarchy, any preemption is appropriately limited to
Appellant's contribution to the art, and not to hierarchies or databases in
general.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-29
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-29 is reversed.
REVERSED
5