Ex Parte Vogel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201612677674 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/677,674 07/15/2010 466 7590 YOUNG & THOMPSON 209 Madison Street Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 09/21/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Marc Vogel 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. 0512-1601 2323 EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2016 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): DocketingDept@young-thompson.com yandtpair@firs ttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARC VOGEL and DAN VOGEL Appeal2015-007308 Application No. 12/677,674 Technology Center 2100 Before MARC S. HOFF, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief filed January 12, 2015 ("App. Br."); Appellant's Reply Brief filed July 31, 2015 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed June 4, 2015 ("Ans."); the Final Office Action mailed August 13, 2014 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed March 11, 2010 ("Spec."). 2 Claims 3 and 6 have been cancelled. Appeal2015-007308 Application No. 12/677,674 Appellants' invention is a relational database including a hierarchy table. The table includes, for each hierarchised datum, all of the data on which it is dependent, regardless of the number of hierarchical levels separating them, each of the data on which it is dependent being contained in a separate record of the table which also contains the hierarchised datum. Spec. 5. The filtering means of the database are suitable for providing a query formulated on the basis of the hierarchy table without resorting to tools for the multidimensional interrogation of the database that are external to the database. Id. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. An installation to manage a database comprising: a relational database that includes (a) database filter means, stored in a server, for filtering data contained in fields using internal algorithms to optimize the database and for providing the data sought in response to a query formulated in SQL language and applied directly on the relational database, said query defining a database filter, and (b) data belonging to at least one data hierarchy having at least three hierarchical levels; and interrogation means, stored in a computer, for formulating at least one query defining the database filter permitting the selection of the data sought by using the database filter, wherein said installation further comprises a hierarchy table comprising, for each hierarchised datum: the hierarchised datum; all of the data on which said hierarchised datum is dependent, regardless of the number of hierarchical levels separating them, each of the data on which said hierarchised datum is dependent being contained in a separate record of the table; and 2 Appeal2015-007308 Application No. 12/677,674 an indicator of the degree of relationship representing the distance between the hierarchical level of said hierarchised datum and the level of each hierarchised datum on which said hierarchised datum is dependent and/ or an indicator of the level of hierarchical depth representing the distance between the said hierarchical level of the hierarchised datum and the highest level of the hierarchised data on which said hierarchised datum is dependent, and wherein, during an interrogation on the basis of a query pertaining to hierarchised data, the database filter provides a response to the formulated query, on the basis of the tables in the database and the hierarchy table only, without resorting to tools for the multidimensional interrogation of the database that are external to the database. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colossi (US 2004/0215626 Al, pub. Oct. 28, 2004) and Byrne (US 6, 199 ,062 Bl; iss. Mar. 6, 2001 ). ISSUES Appellants' arguments present us with the following issues: 1. Does Colossi disclose or suggest a relational database that provides data sought in response to a query formulated in SQL language and applied directly on the relational database? 2. Does Colossi disclose or suggest a hierarchy table comprising, for each hierarchised datum, the hierarchised datum; all of the data on which said hierarchised datum is dependent, regardless of the number of hierarchical levels separating them, each of the data on which said hierarchised datum is dependent being contained in a separate record of the table; and an indicator of the degree of relationship representing the distance between the hierarchical level of said hierarchized datum 3 Appeal2015-007308 Application No. 12/677,674 and the level of each hierarchised datum on which said hierarchised datum is dependent and/or an indicator of the level of hierarchical depth representing the distance between the said hierarchical level of the hierarchized datum and the highest level of the hierarchised data on which said hierarchised datum is dependent? PRINCIPLES OF LAW One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The test of obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 425. "The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a reference is either in the field of the applicant's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for rejection. References are selected as being reasonably pertinent to the problem based on the judgment of a person having ordinary skill in the art." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006). ANALYSIS We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Colossi do not disclose an installation in which the SQL query drafted by the user is applied directly on the relational database. See App. Br. 4. We agree with the 4 Appeal2015-007308 Application No. 12/677,674 Examiner's finding that Colossi discloses that "traditional SQL queries may be issued against the relational database, either directly or via a product that generates SQL queries." Ans. 2; Colossi i-f 321. Appellants' argument that "Colossi ... do not disclose an installation allowing the management of hierarchized data in a rational [sic] database" is not germane to the claimed invention. Such language is not present in the claims under appeal. See App. Br. 5. Appellants' argument that "Colossi do not disclose an installation comprising a hierarchy table" which comprises "a hierarchized datum; for each hierarchized datum, all the data it depends on; and for each hierarchized datum and each datum it depends on, an indicator of the degree of relationship and/or of the level of hierarchical depth between these two data" is not persuasive of Examiner error. See App. Br. 5---6. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Colossi discloses this limitation. Colossi discloses metadata objects from a relational database having hierarchical tables and indications that indicate the relationships among the related metadata objects and their attributes. Final Act. 3, citing Colossi i-f 97. Colossi further discloses that metadata objects are stored in a database catalog that describes the dimensional model and OLAP constructs of existing relational data. i-f 73. Metadata objects describe where pertinent data is located and can also describe relationships within the base data. i-f 75. "Other metadata objects 130 describe relationships between the base metadata objects 130 and link these base metadata objects 130 together. Ultimately, all of the metadata objects 130 can be grouped together by their relationships to each other, into a metadata object called a cube model." ,-r 77. 5 Appeal2015-007308 Application No. 12/677,674 We find that these disclosures in Colossi, taken together, correspond to the "hierarchy table ... [including a] hierarchized datum; all of the data on which said hierarchized datum is dependent" and "an indicator of the degree of relationship ... and/or an indicator of the level of hierarchical depth representing the distance between the said hierarchical level of the said hierarchical level of the hierarchised datum and the highest level of the hierarchised data on which said hierarchized datum is dependent" recited in claim 1. To the extent Appellants present an argument that Byrne is not properly combinable with Colossi because it is nonanalogous, we do not agree with Appellants. See App. Br. 6-7. Both references are directed to the same field of endeavor, which is also Appellants' field of endeavor. Colossi is directed to improving the performance of database queries, and Byrne is directed to indexing in a relational database for faster wildcard searching. Appellants' other arguments concerning Byrne are not germane to the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner relied on Byrne to teach providing "a response to the formulated query, on the basis of the tables in the database and the hierarchy table only, without resorting to tools for the multidimensional interrogation of the database that are external to the database," as required by claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on the detailed teachings of Byrne concerning queries with wildcards, complained of by Appellants. See App. Br. 7-8. We agree with the Examiner's finding that the combined teachings of Colossi and Byrne would have suggested incorporating the teachings of Byrne into Colossi "to provide an optimal data access for a particular database search algorithm." Final Act. 6. 6 Appeal2015-007308 Application No. 12/677,674 We find that the combination of Colossi and Byrne discloses or suggests all the elements of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8. We sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection. CONCLUSIONS 1. Colossi discloses a relational database that provides data sought in response to a query formulated in SQL language and applied directly on the relational database. 2. Colossi teaches or suggests a hierarchy table comprising, for each hierarchized datum, the hierarchised datum; all of the data on which said hierarchised datum is dependent, regardless of the number of hierarchical levels separating them, each of the data on which said hierarchised datum is dependent being contained in a separate record of the table; and an indicator of the degree of relationship representing the distance between the hierarchical level of said hierarchized datum and the level of each hierarchised datum on which said hierarchised datum is dependent and/or an indicator of the level of hierarchical depth representing the distance between the said hierarchical level of the hierarchized datum and the highest level of the hierarchised data on which said hierarchised datum is dependent, as required by claim 1. ORDER The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 is 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation