Ex Parte Weschler

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 30, 2004

09315200 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 2004)

1 Application for patent filed May 19, 1999, entitled
"Mechanism and Method for Managing Service-Specified Data in a
Profile Service."
- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte PAUL WESCHLER

Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,2001

ON BRIEF

Before BARRETT, DIXON, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the final rejection of claims 1-53.
We reverse, but enter a new ground of rejection as to
claims 42-47.
Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
- 2 -
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a profiling service for accessing
user data using a plurality of profile objects.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for managing a profile service, the method
comprising:
storing at least one true-data attribute in a profile
object, said true-data attribute includes a true-data key
and at least one true-data value field;
associating at least one meta-data attribute with said
true-data attribute, said meta-data attribute includes a
meta-data key and at least one meta-data value field,
wherein the meta-data value field describes the associated
true-data attribute;
storing said associated meta-data attribute in said
profile object; and
managing said true-data attribute according to said
associated meta-data attribute.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Thomas 5,838,970 November 17, 1998
Claims 1-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Thomas.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 14) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 24)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
rejection, and to the amended appeal brief (Paper No. 23) (pages
referred to as "Br__") and reply brief (Paper No. 25) (pages
Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
- 3 -
referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Claims 1-53 are grouped to stand or fall together. Claim 1
is analyzed as representative.
The examiner's final rejection reads the limitations of
claim 1 generally on column 3, lines 20-30, column 15, lines 5-35
and Table 4, and column 34, Table 7 (FR2-3), but does not
specifically point to elements in Thomas that correspond to the
claimed "true-data attribute" and "meta-data attribute"
associated with the true-data attribute. The examiner's position
is best explained in the response to the arguments section of the
answer. The examiner finds that Table 4 of Thomas discloses a
profile object that contains true-data attributes and meta-data
attributes associated with the true-data attributes where the
meta-data attributes can be used to manage the true-data
attributes (EA11). The examiner finds that "Object Type #1"
corresponds to a true-data attribute and the indented search
parameters, such as "Object Type Name," "Object Type Version,"
"Last Update Time," etc., correspond to meta-data attributes
associated with "Object Type #1" (EA11). The examiner notes that
the "Last Update Time" in Table 4 of Thomas corresponds to the
meta-data attribute "type=upd_98409245" for last update timestamp
in appellant's Fig. 5A (see also specification at page 22) and,
Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
- 4 -
therefore, it must be a meta-data attribute (EA12). The examiner
finds that attributes, such as "Object Type
Name=ACME::VIDEOMAIL," "Object Type Version," "Compression
Type=MPEG," and "Resolution=300 dpi" in Table 7, correspond to
meta-data attributes associated with "Object Type #1" and are
used to manage "Object Type #1" (EA13).
Appellant anticipated and addressed the examiner's position
in the brief. Appellant argues that Thomas fails to show a
method that: (1) associates at least one meta-data attribute with
a true-data attribute; (2) stores the associated meta-data
attribute in the profile object; and/or (3) manages the true-data
attribute according to the associated meta-data attribute (Br5).
It is argued that "[o]bject-type search parameters, the alleged
meta-data, are not used to manage other data in Table 4, but
instead are used to manage 'actual executables and libraries'
outside the Table 4" (Br7) and "there is no evidence that
meta-data attributes in a table are being used to manage a
true-data attribute in that same table" (emphasis omitted) (Br7).
It is argued that "if we are to characterize the 'search
parameters' and 'executable information' as meta-data, that
meta-data is not used to manage anything in the repository
itself, but instead to manage some other object that may or may
not even be executed on the same computer" (Br7). Appellant
argues that "[w]hat is missing from Thomas is any indication of
Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
- 5 -
meta-data that would describe something about the true-data
contents of each entry" (Br8). In the reply brief, appellant
notes the examiner's characterization of specific attributes of
Table 4 ("Object Type Name," "Object Type Version," "Last Update
Time," etc.) as meta-data that are used to manage a true-data
attribute, but argues that "[e]ach of these attributes specify
some property of an external object, not properties that are used
to manage the true data attribute itself" (footnote omitted)
(RBr1). It is argued that the "Object Type Version" in Thomas
refers to a version number associated with the external object,
not a version number of the "Object Type #1" attribute (RBr2).
It is argued that the "Last Update Time" attribute indicates when
the external object is updated, not when the information
repository is updated (RBr2). In summary, it is argued that
"Thomas describes a system in which the attributes contained in
an information repository describe external entities, not
entities within the data structure itself" (RBr2).
We can understand why the examiner made and maintained the
rejection. The tables in Thomas show data structures having
parameters indented under headings and, as shown in Table 7, the
headings and parameters are attributes because they are key/value
pairs; thus, the tables closely resemble appellant's Fig. 5A in
appearance. The examiner notes that the "Last Update Time" in
Table 4 of Thomas is similar to the meta-data attribute
Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
- 6 -
"type=upd_98409245" for last update timestamp in appellant's
Fig. 5A (see also specification at page 22) and concludes that it
must be a meta-data attribute (EA12). In addition, the examiner
was faced with the not so simple job of determining what is true
data and what is meta-data. As acknowledged by appellant, "[t]he
distinction between meta-data and true-data may be conceptually
difficult" (Br7). However, on balance, appellant has convinced
us of the correctness of his position.
Thomas does not use the terms "true data" and "meta-data,"
which makes our job difficult. Part of the problem is the
definition of terms. The specification defines an "attribute" as
a "key=value pair" (page 10). The specification defines
"true-data attribute" and "meta-data attribute" as (page 20):
For clarity, a true-data attribute is defined herein as an
attribute that contains a value (e.g. data, external
reference, or binding) used by a user entity or client. A
meta-data attribute is defined as an attribute associated
with a true-data attribute which contains information used
and maintained by the core profile engine 201 (shown in
Fig. 2).
"True data" is the actual data to be used. "Meta-data" is data
about the "true data." The following definition of "meta-data"
is from "www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/":
Data that describes other data. The term may refer to
detailed compilations such as data dictionaries and
repositories that provide a substantial amount of
information about each data element. It may also refer to
any descriptive item about data, such as the content of an
HTML meta tag or a title field in a media file.
Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
- 7 -
Meta-data has existed for centuries. Card catalogs and
handwritten indexes are examples long before the electronic
age.
Although countless articles, magazines and books spell this
term as one word, "meta-data" with the hyphen is the proper,
generic spelling, because the Metadata company has
trademarked the name. See metadata, data dictionary,
repository, meta tag and Meta Data Coalition.
"Meta-data" is also defined in "dictionary.reference.com/
search?q=meta-data":
Data about data. In data processing, meta-data is
definitional data that provides information about or
documentation of other data managed within an application or
environment.
For example, meta-data would document data about data
elements or attributes, (name, size, data type, etc) and
data about records or data structures (length, fields,
columns, etc) and data about data (where it is located, how
it is associated, ownership, etc.). Meta-data may include
descriptive information about the context, quality and
condition, or characteristics of the data.
Traditionally, the information we put on the page is content or
true data. Meta-data is information used to describe or define
that content. So, it's not content in and of itself.
The examiner relies on both the implementation repository
data structure in Table 4 (probably because it contains a "Last
Update Time" parameter similar to appellant's "upd_" meta-data)
and on the service profile repository data structure in Table 7
(probably because the heading "Object Type #1=ACME::VIDEOMAIL"
and the parameters like "Object Type Version=1" have the
appearance of attribute key/value pairs). We first examine the
implementation repository data structure (col. 14, line 5 to
Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
2 In object-oriented programming languages like C++, the
"::" operator is called the "binary scope resolution operator."
The class name and a double colon (e.g., Student::) are prepended
to each of the functions names. This prefix is a tag that tells
the compiler that you are referring to something inside the
Student class.
- 8 -
col. 16, line 21 & Table 4; col. 35, line 33 to col. 36, line 33
& Table 9). As shown in Table 9, the search parameters can be
attributes with key/value pairs. The heading "Object Type #1"
does not have a value like "Object Type #1=ACME::VIDEOMAIL" in
Table 7, but we will assume that it does. We interpret
"ACME::VIDEOMAIL" to identify the object VIDEOMAIL within the
class ACME,2 i.e., it identifies an external object type stored
somewhere else. Assuming "ACME::VIDEOMAIL" represents true data,
the object type entries contain the implementation information
needed to activate an object of that particular type and are not
meta-data attributes "wherein the meta-data value field describes
the associated true-data attribute," as claimed, because they do
not describe the data "ACME::VIDEOMAIL." When the implementation
repository receives a request from an object broker for
implementation information for an object of a particular type,
the search parameters are used to select an implementation
appropriate for the type of hardware, operating system, and other
implementation preferences required for the particular object
operation, and the information passed back from the
implementation repository includes that required to access the
Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
- 9 -
code to be executed and the libraries to be used in activating
the object implementation (col. 14, lines 16-27). Thus, the
search parameters select an appropriate implementation and the
executable information tells how to access the code for the
object implementation The search parameters and executable
information are not meta-data attributes "wherein the meta-data
value field describes the associated true-data attribute" because
they do not describe something about the term "ACME::VIDEOMAIL."
We also agree with appellant that the search parameters are
associated with an external object and are not used for "managing
said true-data attribute according to said associated meta-data
attribute." The same observations are made about the search
parameters in Table 7. Accordingly, we find that Tables 4, 7,
and 9 of Thomas do not anticipate claim 1. Since the claims
stand or fall together, the rejection of claims 1-53 is reversed.
New ground of rejection pursuant to 36 CFR § 41.50(b)
Claims 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claims are directed
to a "profile object." The specification states (page 17,
lines 30-35): "As used herein, the term 'object' refers to a data
structure stored in mass storage or memory accessible by a
computer that contains specified data and a set of methods or
operations that enable the object to perform operations on the
data it contains." Therefore, an object is a data structure
Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
- 10 -
containing data and methods for performing operations on the
data. Although the specification states that the object is
stored in mass storage or a computer memory, this is not an
express limitation of the claims. Implied limitations are not to
be read into the claims. An "object" per se has no physical
substance and does not fit within any of the statutory classes of
"process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" of
§ 101 because it does not recite steps or any physical structure.
See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361-62, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (data structure per se of claim 6 is not in one
of the categories of § 101). Furthermore, an "object" per se is
an "abstract idea" because it has no concrete physical
instantiation. We hold that the subject matter of claims 42-47
is nonstatutory because it does not fit within any of the
statutory categories and because it falls within the abstract
idea exception. If the claims were amended to recite that the
object was stored in a physical medium, this would overcome the
rejection because of the statutory nature of the medium and the
fact that the object information is functional when used in a
computer. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (memory containing a stored data structure was
statutory subject matter); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
§ 2106 IV.B.1 (distinguishing between "functional descriptive
material" and "nonfunctional descriptive material").
Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
- 11 -
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-53 is reversed.
A new ground of rejection of claims 42-47 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 is entered pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 CFR § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg.
49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21
(September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground
of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered
final for judicial review."
37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of
rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence
relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have
the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event
the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the
proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon
the same record. . . .
Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
- 12 -
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED - 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
- 13 -
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
ONE TABOR CENTER, SUITE 1500
1200 SEVENTEEN ST.
DENVER, CO 80202