Ex Parte Weissman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 8, 2006

09625518 (B.P.A.I. May. 8, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CRAIG DAVID WEISSMAN, GREGORY VINCENT WALSH, and ELIOT
LEONARD WEGBREIT
____________

Appeal No. 2006-0331
Application No.09/625,518
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before THOMAS, KRASS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-47.
The invention is directed to a system for creating a database in a computer, best
illustrated by reference to representative independent claim 1 reproduced as follows:
1. A method of creating a system for creating a well-
formed database system using a computer, the method comprising:

the computer accessing a definition of the system, the definition defining a
schema for use by the system, the schema defining a set of tables, a set of
columns that correspond to the set of tables, and a set of relationships between
the tables of the set of tables, the definition further defining a set of operations for
manipulating the data, the set of operations defining programs that operate on
the set of tables and the set of table columns; and

Appeal No. 2006-0331
Application No. 09/625,518

2
the computer using the definition to generate the set
of tables.

The examiner relies on the following references:
Bachman et al. (Bachman) 5,249,300 Sep. 28, 1993
Bapat 5,295,256 Mar. 15, 1994
Koss 5,272,628 Dec. 21, 1993
Rosensteel Jr. et al. (Rosensteel) 6,167,405 Dec. 26, 2000
(Filed Apr. 27, 1998)
Skinner et al. (Skinner) 6,085,198 Jul. 04, 2000
(Filed Jun. 05, 1998)
Smiley 6,263,341 Jul. 17, 2001
(Filed Jun. 7, 1995)
Tse et al. (Tse) 6,282,544 Aug. 28, 2001
(Filed May 24, 1999)

Index interface links CASE and IBM’s DB2, Feuche (Pages 1-2)
Oct. 24, 1988

Claims 1-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner cites Smiley and Feuche with regard to claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 17, 18, 21,
22, 26, 27, 29-31, 36, 38, 39, 43, and 44, adding, alternatively, Bapat with regard to
claims 3, 5, 23, 25, 32, 34, 40, 42, 45, and 47, Bachman with regard to claims 4, 7, 24,
33, 41, and 46, Skinner with regard to claim 8, Rosensteel with regard to claim 9, Koss
with regard to claims 12-16, 19, and 28, Tse with regard to claim 20, Bapat and Koss
with regard to claim 35, and Koss and Bachman with regard to claim 37.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.

Appeal No. 2006-0331
Application No. 09/625,518

3
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’ grouping of the claims
at page 3 of the principal brief, all claims will stand or fall together. We focus on
independent claim 1.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. §103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532,
28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of obviousness under
§103, the examiner must produce a factual basis supported by a teaching in a prior art
reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
examiner may satisfy his/her burden only by showing some objective teaching in the
prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would
lead the individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references. In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner asserts that Smiley discloses a
method whereby a computer accesses a definition of the system, the definition defining
a schema for use by the system (the examiner refers to column 4, lines 20-30,
regarding “The OBJECTS include ATTRIBUTES…”).
The examiner identifies column 3, lines 8-11, of Smiley, regarding “Alternatively,
the attributes of OBJECT 12 may be configured…,” as a teaching of the schema
Appeal No. 2006-0331
Application No. 09/625,518

4
defining a set of tables, a set of columns that corresponds to the set of tables, and a set
of relationships between the tables of the set of tables. The examiner also cites column
3, lines 27-33, regarding “RELATIONSHIP entity 14 preferably contains attributes of
fields which record….,” and column 4, lines 25-32, regarding “Another OBJECT 12 is
ENTITY 21…”
With regard to the claimed “definition further defining a set of operations for
manipulating the data, the set of operations defining programs that operate on the set of
tables and the set of table columns,” the examiner cites column 6, line 66 through
column 7, line 3, of Smiley.
The examiner recognizes that Smiley lacks a teaching of the computer using the
definition to generate the set of tables. The examiner then turns to Feuche for this
limitation, pointing, specifically, to the last two paragraphs of page 1 to the first line of
page 2, wherein the link’s DB2 utilities automatically create DB2 entities and the link can
automatically create DB2 tables from logical record definitions.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate using the
definition to generate the set of tables, as disclosed by Feuche, into the system
definition access taught by Smiley “to eliminate the need to manually re-key design and
data requirements, thereby increasing productivity and reducing design discrepancies
and system errors” (answer-page 5).
We have considered the evidence before us, including, inter alia, the disclosures
of the applied references and the arguments of appellants and the examiner and we
Appeal No. 2006-0331
Application No. 09/625,518

5
conclude therefrom that the examiner has not established the requisite prima facie case
of obviousness.
We do not find, within the disclosures of Smiley and/or Feuche, the claimed “set
of relationships between the tables…the definition further defining a set of operations for
manipulating the data, the set of operations defining programs that operate on the set of
tables and the set of table columns,” wherein the definition is used to generate the set of
tables.
The examiner says that Feuche discloses using the definition to generate the set
of tables because it discloses, at the bottom of page 1, that a “link can automatically
create DB2 tables from logical record definitions.” However, we agree with appellants
when they assert, at page 3 of the reply brief, that “[j]ust because the DB2 tables can be
created from definitions does not teach or suggest that the system disclosed in Feusche
(sic, Feuche) is capable of generating a set of tables using a definition defining a set of
relationships between the tables, as claimed in the present application” [emphasis in
the original]. In other words, we know nothing about the “definitions” recited in Feuche
and it would be speculation, at best, to assert that the logical record definitions
developed in the Excelerator are “definitions,” as claimed, i.e., that the definitions of
Feuche define a set of relationships between tables of a set of tables. In fact, it is
unclear from Feuche where Feuche would even obtain information about relationships
between tables that might be used when generating the set of tables, so it does not
Appeal No. 2006-0331
Application No. 09/625,518

6
appear reasonable to contend, as the examiner does, that Feuche discloses the
definition to generate the set of tables as recited in the instant claims.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Smiley disclosed all that the examiner alleges,
there would still be no apparent reason for the artisan to have modified Smiley in any
manner so as to provide for using the definition (column 4, line 23, of Smiley) to
generate the set of tables (the examiner appears to indicate column 3, lines 8-11, of
Smiley as providing for the set of tables, but it is unclear to us that this portion of Smiley
provides for such).
Further, we agree with appellants (pages 6-7 of the reply brief) that there is
nothing in the cited portions of Smiley (columns 3, 4, 6, and 7) that suggests the
generation of a set of tables based on a definition defining a set of relationships
between the tables, as claimed.
Moreover, none of the other cited references remedy the deficiency of Smiley
and Feuche.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-47 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal No. 2006-0331
Application No. 09/625,518

7

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )

EK/gw

BINGHAM, MCCUTCHEN LLP
THREE EMBARCADERO CENTER
18TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-4067

Appeal No. 2006-0331
Application No. 09/625,518

8