Ex Parte Vronay et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 23, 2012

10461832 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2012)

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