Ex Parte Vronay et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 23, 201210461832 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte DAVID P. VRONAY, CEZARY MARCJAN, ANDRZEJ TURSKI, and RYSZARD KOTT ____________________ Appeal 2010-000231 Application 10/461,832 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000231 Application 10/461,832 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 73. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a database query user interface. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A database query user interface for forming a database query for a database, comprising: a first syntactical prompt for constructing an initial portion of a database query in a chunk expression language format; a second syntactical prompt for constructing a second portion of a database query in a chunk expression language format, the second portion being a multi-element chunk expression language syntactic group that completes a syntactically correct expression for the database query; and a list of exceptions to the database query. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Tennant Culliss Ryan Ortega US 4,829,423 US 6,078,916 US 2003/0088554 A1 US 6,564,213 B1 May 9, 1989 June 20, 2000 May 8, 2003 May 13, 2003 Appeal 2010-000231 Application 10/461,832 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1-4, 6-22, 24-35, 38, 42-53, 55-68, and 70-73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ortega, Tennant, and Ryan. Claims 5, 23, 54, and 69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ortega, Tennant, Ryan, and Culliss. Claims 36, 37, and 39-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ortega and Ryan. ANALYSIS The Examiner maintains that Ryan at paragraph [0233] teaches the claimed "a list of exceptions to the database query" of independent claim 1. (Ans. 5). We note that the language of independent claim 1 sets forth "A database query user interface for forming a database query for a database." The body of the claim, however, merely sets forth two "prompting" steps and a "list", but the list does not necessarily form part of the claimed interface. We leave it to the Examiner to further evaluate the scope of claim 1, and we merely address the prior art rejection as set forth by the Examiner. Turning to the rejection, the Examiner maintains that Ryan teaches the claimed exception list (Ans. 4-5; 38-40). Appellants contend that paragraph [0223] of Ryan, the portion identified by the Examiner, does not teach the claimed "a list of exceptions to the database query." (App. Br. 6)1. In 1 We note that Appellants' Appeal Brief does not include pagination. Therefore, we start our page count from the first page containing the Real Party in Interest as page number 1. Appeal 2010-000231 Application 10/461,832 4 response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner maintains that paragraph [0047] of the Specification: merely defines: “an] exception list, such as an exception list 810 included in data structure 800, is a listing of one or more modifications (e.g., additions or deletions) a user makes to the results of a query" (Paragraph 47). Therefore, the examiner wishes to state that Ryan broadly teaches the exception list, since Ryan's method allows for the deletion of high-flying web pages. (Ans. 40). Appellants contend that: T]he exception list is separate from the query but is persisted with it, and it allows a user to have direct and simple manipulation of query results by adding or deleting query results rather than define a valid query and conduct another search to achieve the modified results (See A]pplicants' specification paragraph 0049). (Reply Br. 3-4). We note that paragraphs [0047]-[0053] identify various properties of the exception list which clearly identifies that the list is separate and distinct from the query statement as is contended by Appellants. We find that Appellant's Specification at paragraph [0047] states: An exception list, such as an exception list 810 included in data structure 800, is a listing of one or more modifications (e.g., additions or deletions) a user makes to the results of a query. These modifications may be persisted as exception list 810. It will be appreciated that in the exception list it is the query results that is modified by the user rather than the query specification itself. We find Appellants' Specification at paragraph [0047] to clearly evidence that "in the exception list it is the query results that is [sic] Appeal 2010-000231 Application 10/461,832 5 modified by the user rather than the query specification itself." (Spec. 10, ¶[0047]) (emphasis added). Appellants contend that the Ryan reference teaches that the user customizes the search, but "[s]uch feature to customize a search command fails to teach or suggest a list of exceptions to the database query." (App. Br. 6). Appellant further contends that "[t]he modified search of Ryan et al. is not a list, nor is it a list of exceptions to the database query. The initial preferences to change the scope of a search are merely general parameters integrated in a query prior to performing the search, and not any particular list of exceptions." (App. Br. 6). Therefore, we interpret the claim language to be directed to the results of the processed query. We disagree with the Examiner's conclusion and find that the relied upon paragraph [0223] states: Prior to initiating the customized search in step 466, which step is identical to step 404 of the collective search previously described with respect to FIG. 11, however, step 464 is applied to customize the users default mixture of hit-lists For example a user may want their default search results to include only popular and new web pages but no high flying web pages. This custom search is then performed in step 466 to generate a list of web page numbers. Thereafter, in step 468 the list of web-page numbers found from step 466 is combined with the URL address and web-page description from Table 2 (188FIG. 5). (Ryan, ¶0223]). We agree with Appellants that the relied upon teaching merely suggests a list of webpages generated as a result of a custom search "combined with the URL address and web-page description from Table 2 (188FIG. 5)" rather than the claimed "a list of exceptions to the database query" (claim 1). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-19 which contain the same limitations. Appeal 2010-000231 Application 10/461,832 6 Independent claims 20, 36, 43, and 58 contain similar limitations which the Examiner has not set forth a sufficient showing of obviousness thereto. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 20, 36, 43, and 58 and dependent claims 21-35, 37-42, 44-57, and 59-73. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-73 under obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-73 are reversed. REVERSED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation