Ex Parte Wong

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2014

11391033 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL MANHUNG WONG
____________

Appeal 2012-009502
Application 11/391,0331
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
6, 9–14, and 17–20. Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Oracle International
Corporation. App. Br. 1.

Appeal 2012-009502
Application 11/391,033

2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for modifying a
row in a database table to include meta-data. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a definition for an extensible row descriptor
and an update rule corresponding to a row in a database table,
wherein the extensible row descriptor comprises meta-
data about operations performed on the row,
wherein the update rule specifies:
a field in the row,
information to be stored in the extensible row
descriptor, and
a condition for updating the extensible row
descriptor, and
wherein the extensible row descriptor and the update rule
are incorporated into the table;
using the update rule to determine whether executing a
command necessitates updating the extensible row descriptor
corresponding to the row; and
responsive to executing the command necessitating
updating the extensible row descriptor, updating the extensible
row descriptor based on the update rule.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App’x).

THE EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9–11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korenevsky (US 7,249,140
Appeal 2012-009502
Application 11/391,033

3
B1, July 24, 2007) and Olson-Williams (US 2007/0112866 Al, May 17,
2007). Ans. 5–9.
Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Korenevsky, Olson-Williams, and Cook (US 6,820,082
B1, Nov. 16, 2004). Ans. 10.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Korenevsky, Olson-Williams, and Rhoads (US
2006/0041591 Al, Feb. 23, 2006). Ans. 10–11.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–6, 9–14, and 17–20 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the combination of
Korenevsky and Olson-Wilson fails to disclose “using the update rule to
determine whether executing a command necessitates updating the
extensible row descriptor corresponding to the row,” as required by the
claims?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner concedes that Korenevsky does not explicitly teach
“using the update rule to determine whether executing a command
necessitates updating the extensible row descriptor corresponding to the
row,” as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Ans. 6. Nevertheless, in
relation to this same limitation, the Examiner relies on Korenevsky to teach
that “every new input record or row causes a new evaluation of the rules[’]
conditions” and that “[e]very condition that evaluates to TRUE triggers
execution of the rule’s action part.” Ans. 7. The Examiner reasons that
Appeal 2012-009502
Application 11/391,033

4
Korenevsky thus “disclose[s that] a user may include multiple conditional
and unconditional update rules.” Ans. 13. The Examiner also relies on
Olson-Williams to teach that “action field 210 identifies an action or
operation that was performed to the row 207.” Ans. 7, 13.
Appellant contends that “Korenevsky at most discloses evaluating the
rule condition before updating a record, which is distinctive from” the
“using” step in claim 1. App. Br. 11. Appellant also contends that
“[n]owhere do[es] Olson-Williams disclose using an update rule to
determine whether the row descriptor should be updated.” Id. Applicant
concludes that “implementing the combination of Korenevsky and Olson-
Williams only ensures that the last action triggered by the rule condition is
reflected in the action field.” Id.
We agree with Appellant’s contentions. The Examiner fails to show
how Korenevsky or Olson-Williams discloses the use of an update rule to
determine whether a particular command would necessitate an update of the
extensible row descriptor. The Examiner’s postulation about the existence
of “multiple conditional and unconditional update rules” in Korenevsky,
Ans. 13, does not provide a rationale as to how Korenevsky would make a
determination—based on the update rule—about whether it is necessary to
update the row descriptor. In the absence of this rationale, the Examiner’s
rejection cannot stand.
Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Korenevsky
and Olson-Williams. For that reason, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Because claims 2–6, 10–14, and 18–20
Appeal 2012-009502
Application 11/391,033

5
depend from these independent claims, we also do not sustain the rejections
of claims 2–6, 10–14, and 18–20.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–6, 9–14, and 17–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.

REVERSED

msc