Ex Parte Yeh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 17, 2010

10387052 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ADAM YEH and JONATHAN TANG
____________________

Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: March 18, 2010
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-32 (Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2008).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a method and system
to satisfy reporting requirements by accessing data in a system that is
modeled according to an object model (Spec. 1, ll. 5-7). In particular, the
system and method involves automatically generating the object model from
a dimensional model, allowing a user to generate desired reports using
object-oriented expressions (Spec. 3, ll. 25-28). These object-oriented
expressions are then translated to dimensional model query expressions that
are executed against the dimensional model (Spec. 3, l. 28 to 4, l. 2).

Exemplary Claim
Claim 12 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
12. A computer-implemented method of generating an object
model from an existing dimensional model, the existing
dimensional model having a plurality of fact tables, each fact
table having one or more corresponding dimensions, wherein
the existing dimensional model represents object relationships
in an initial object model and relational relationships in a
relational database, and wherein the method comprising:

selecting a fact table in the existing dimensional model;

generating, with a computer, a primary entity for the
object model corresponding to the selected fact
table in the existing dimensional model; and
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

3
generating, with a computer, a non-primary entity,
related to the primary entity, for each dimension of
the selected fact table.

Prior Art
RALPH KIMBALL, THE DATA WAREHOUSE TOOLKIT 234-35 (Robert
Elliott, ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1996) (hereinafter “Kimball”).

Vivekanand Gopalkrishnan, et. al, Star/Snow-flake Schema Driven
Object-Relational Data Warehouse Design and Query Processing
Strategies, 1676 Lecture Notes in Computer Science Data Warehousing and
Knowledge Discovery, 11-22 (Mukesh Mohania and A. Min Tjoa eds.,
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999) (hereinafter “Gopalkrishnan”).

Cassandra Phipps and Karen C. Davis, Automating Data Warehouse
Conceptual Schema Design and Evaluation, 2002 Design and Mgmt. of
Data Warehouses 1 (hereinafter “Phipps”).

Rejections
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18-27 and 29-31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gopalkrishnan.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gopalkrishnan and Kimball.
Claims 11, 17, 28 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gopalkrishnan and Phipps.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
(1) Appellants group together claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-16 as a group
on the basis of claims 1 and 12 (Br. 5). We select independent claim 12 as
the representative claim. We therefore treat claims 1-6, 8-10, and 13-16 as
standing or falling with representative claim 12. Claim 7 was not separately
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

4
argued but grouped with claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-16. However, we treat
claim 7 separately.
(3) Appellants argue claims 11 and 17 as a group (id. at 8). We select
claim 11 as the representative claim. We therefore treat claims 11 and 17 as
standing or falling together.
(4) Appellants argue claims 18-27, and 29-31 as a group on the basis
of claims 18 and 29 (id.). We select independent claim 18 as the
representative claim. We therefore treat claims 19-27, and 29-31 as standing
or falling with representative claim 18.
(5) Appellants argue claims 28 and 32 as a group (id. at 9). We select
claim 28 as the representative claim. We therefore treat claims 28 and 32 as
standing or falling together.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102: Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-16
Appellants contend that Gopalkrishnan discloses a snowflake schema
(i.e., FIG. 5), and an object-oriented schema (i.e., Fig. 6), and that the object-
oriented schema is derived from the snowflake schema (Br. 6-7). However,
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 12 require “that a dimensional
model, derived from an initial object model, reflects the relationships in the
initial object model and the relationships in the relational database” (id. at
6). Appellants also argue Gopalkrishnan does not disclose an initial object
model (id.).
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

5
In response, the Examiner finds that the Relational DW level in
Gopalkrishnan, discloses a dimensional model that represents “object
relationships between objects in a given model and relationships in a
relational database” (Ans. 7). Specifically, the Examiner finds the
“Relational DW level” includes the (1) Wrapper/Monitor (i.e., Relational
O/O) and (2) the Integrated database (i.e., Relational/OO) which the
Examiner interprets as the “object model” from the “Star/Snowflake
schema” (i.e., dimensional model) (id.).
Further, the Examiner finds Gopalkrishnan discloses a Star/Snowflake
schema (dimensions) that represent the object relationships in an object
model and relational relationships in a relational database of the “Relational
DW Level” (Ans. 7-8). The Examiner further finds Gopalkrishnan discloses
a corresponding initial O-O schema in the translation from the Snowflake to
O-O schema (id. at 8).

Issue 1: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding
Gopalkrishnan teaches a dimensional model that represents object
relationships in an initial object model and relational relationships in a
relational database?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
We find the following findings of fact (FF) are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Gopalkrishnan Reference
(1) Gopalkrishnan discloses a star/snow-flake driven object-
relational data warehouse design and query processing strategy to efficiently
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

6
address the problems of view design and portray the intuition necessary for
building and supporting complex queries on complex data (Abst.). An
Object-Relational View (ORV) design for data warehouses involves using
object-oriented methodology, and providing a translation mechanism for
translating from the star/snowflake schema to an object-oriented schema
(id.).
(2) Fig. 1 illustrates a layered architecture of ORV (p. 12, para. 1).
The Relational DW level corresponds to one layer of the ORV, and includes
the (1) Star/Snowflake Schema; (2) the Wrapper/Monitor (Relational/OO);
(3) the Integrated database (Relational/OO) units; and (4)
Summarizing/Indexing unit (see Fig. 1).
(3) In the ORV architecture, data passes from a Wrapper/Monitor
(Relational/OO) unit to an Integrated database (Relational/OO) unit, then to
a Summarizing/Indexing unit, and finally to a Star/Snowflake Schema unit
(Fig. 1).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)).
Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

7
determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the
basis of the claim language, but upon giving the claims their broadest
reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The properly
interpreted claim must then be compared with the prior art.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 12 require “that a
dimensional model, derived from an initial object model, reflects the
relationships in the initial object model and the relationships in the relational
database” (Br. 6). However, neither claim 1 nor claim 12 recites this
language (Br. 11, Claims App’x; Br. 13, Claims App’x). Thus, we find
Appellants argue language that is not found in either independent claim 1 or
12, as, claims 1 and 12 do not recite the terms “derived” or “reflects”.
Additionally, we find Gopalkrishnan teaches “wherein the existing
dimensional model represents object relationships in an initial object model
and relational relationships in a relational database” as recited in
representative claim 12 (see commensurate language in claim 1). Thus, we
find the dimensional model of claim 12 (1) represents object relationships in
an initial object model and (2) represents relational relationships in a
relational database.
Specifically, based on our review of Gopalkrishnan, we find the
Relational DW level corresponds to an initial object model (as in claim 12)
or a given object model (as in claim 1). The Relational DW Level (i.e.,
initial object model) includes (1) the Snowflake Schema; (2) the
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

8
Wrapper/Monitor (Relational/OO) unit; (3) and the Integrated database
(Relational/OO) unit; and (4) the Summarizing/Indexing unit (FF 2).
Further we find that in the Relational DW level data passes from a
Wrapper/Monitor (Relational/OO) unit to an Integrated Database
(Relational/OO) unit, then to a Summarizing/Indexing unit, and finally to a
Star/Snowflake Schema unit (FF 3).
Therefore, we find one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that the (1) Wrapper/Monitor (Relational/OO) unit and (2) and Integrated
database (Relational/OO) unit involve objects, as they are part of the ORV
(i.e., object-relational view) as the model performs translation into the O-O
level.
Accordingly, we find the snowflake schema (i.e., dimensional model)
is representative of object relationships because the snowflake schema is the
output or result of the transmission of data from the Wrapper/Monitor
(Relational/OO) unit, to the Integrated Database (Relational/OO) unit, and
then to the Summarizing/Indexing unit. Thus, the snowflake schema (i.e.,
dimensional model) reflects (i.e., represents) the interaction (i.e.,
relationships) between the Wrapper/Monitor (Relational/OO) unit, and the
Integrated Database (Relational/OO) (i.e., objects).
Further, we find the snowflake schema (i.e., dimensional model)
necessarily represents relational relationships in a relational database
because, as discussed above, the snowflake schema reflects data that passed
from the Integrated Database (Relational/OO) unit. We find one of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that the Integrated Database (Relational/OO)
unit involves a relational database. Further, we find one of ordinary skill in
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

9
the art would also recognize that a relational database inherently represents
relational relationships.
Thus, we find the snowflake schema (i.e., dimensional model)
inherently represents relational relationships in a relational database, as the
snowflake schema (i.e., dimensional model) results from, at least in part, the
Integrated Database (Relational/OO) unit that includes a relational database
(i.e., relational relationships). Accordingly, we find Gopalkrishnan teaches a
dimensional model that represents object relationships in an initial object
model and relational relationships in a relational database. Thus, after
reviewing to totality of the record before us, it is our view Appellants have
failed to show the Examiner erred in finding Gopalkrishnan teaches a
“dimensional model [that] represents object relationships in an initial object
model and relational relationships in a relational database,” as in
representative claim 12.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claim 7
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

10
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being obvious over
Gopalkrishnan and Kimball. Appellants failed to separately argue claim 7.
As set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 12, we find Gopalkrishnan
discloses the features recited in claim 1. Appellants failed to present any
arguments or evidence to show Kimball does not teach the limitation recited
in claim 7. Thus, after the reviewing to totality of the record before us we
find that Appellants have failed to show the Examiner erred in finding
Gopalkrishnan and Kimball teach the limitations of claim 7.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 11 and 17
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Gopalkrishnan
and Phipps because neither reference discloses automatically generating the
existing dimensional model from an initial (or given) object model (Br. 8).
In particular, Appellants rely on the arguments presented for claims 1-10,
and 12-16 discussed above (id.). Specifically, Appellants contend that
(1) “Gopalkrishnan does not teach or suggest a dimensional model created
from an initial object model, and preserving the relationships in the initial
object model,” and (2) Phipps does not cure the deficiency of Gopalkrishnan
(id.).
The Examiner finds that “Gopalkrishnan discloses the argued
limitation . . . [and] Phipps is not required to address the argued deficiency”
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

11
(Ans. 8). Additionally, the Examiner finds that Gopalkrishnan describes
“the ‘Relational DW level’ comprising the Wrapper/Monitor being
‘Relational/OO’ and Integrated database being ‘Relational’ which [h]as been
interpreted as the ‘initial object model’ from which the ‘Star/Snowflake
schema’ … represents the object relationships in an initial object model and
relational relationships in a relational database of the ‘Relational DW level’”
(id. at 8-9).

Issue 2: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that
Gopalkrishnan teaches or suggests a dimensional model automatically
generated from an initial object model?

ANALYSIS
We find that claim 11 recites “automatically generating the existing
dimensional model from the given object model,” and claim 17 recites
“automatically generating the existing dimensional model from an initial
object model” (Br. 13-14, Claims App’x). Thus, we find Appellants again
argue limitations that are not in the claims (i.e., “preserving the relationships
in the initial object model”).
However, as discussed above, with respect to Issue 1, we find
Gopalkrishnan teaches a dimensional model (i.e., snowflake schema)
automatically generated from an initial object model (i.e., Relational DW
level).

Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

12
ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) - claims 18-27 and 29-31
Appellants argue that because Gopalkrishnan does not teach
“generating an object model from an [sic] dimensional model that represents
an initial object model” it cannot teach “‘an entity generator generating an
object model based on the existing dimensional model, the object model
providing a view of the data that is different from a view provided by the
initial object model’” as in representative claim 18 (Br. 9).
In response, the Examiner maintains that that
Gopalkrishnan describes the ‘Relational DW level’ comprising
the Wrapper/Monitor being ‘Relational/OO’ and Integrated
database being ‘Relational/OO’ which [h]as been interpreted as
the ‘initial object model’ from which the ‘Star/Snowflake
schema’ … represents the object relationships in an initial
object model and relational relationships in a relational database
of the ‘Relational DW level’

(Ans. 8-9).

Issue 3: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding
Gopalkrishnan teaches “an entity generator generating an object model
based on the existing dimensional model, the object model providing a view
of the data that is different from a view provided by the initial object model”
as claimed?

Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

13
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
We further find as follows:
Gopalkrishnan Reference
(4) Figure 5 illustrates a generalized view of a snowflake schema,
and Figure 6 illustrates a snowflake schema that has been translated into an
O-O (object-oriented) schema (Figs. 5-6).

ANALYSIS
We find Gopalkrishnan teaches generating an object model from a
dimensional model that represents an initial object model. We further find
Gopalkrishnan discloses a snowflake schema (i.e., dimensional model) that
has been translated into an O-O (object-oriented) schema (FF 4). Thus, we
find one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the O-O (object-
oriented) schema is an object model that is generated from the snowflake
schema (i.e., dimensional model).
Further, we find, as discussed above with respect to Issue 1, that
Gopalkrishnan teaches a dimensional model (i.e., snowflake schema) that is
representative of the relationships between units of the Relational DW level
(i.e., initial object model). Thus, we also find Gopalkrishnan teaches a
dimensional model (i.e., snowflake schema) that represents an initial object
model (i.e., Relational DW level).
Accordingly, we find Gopalkrishnan teaches generating an object
model from a dimensional model that represents an initial object model. As
this is Appellants basis for arguing Gopalkrishnan does not teach an “entity
generator generating an object model based on the existing dimensional
model, the object model providing a view of the data that is different from a
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

14
view provided by the initial object model,” we find Appellants have failed to
persuade us that the Examiner erred in his conclusion that Gopalkrishnan
teaches an “entity generator generating an object model based on the
existing dimensional model, the object model providing a view of the data
that is different from a view provided by the initial object model,” as recited
in representative claim 18.
Appellants argue independent claim 29 for the reasons argued with
respect to independent claim 18 (Br. 9). Thus, for the reasons discussed
above with respect to independent claim 18, we also find Appellants have
failed to show the Examiner erred in his rejection of independent claim 29,
as being anticipated by Gopalkrishnan.

ISSUE 4
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 28 and 32
Appellants contend claims 28 and 32 are allowable for the reasons
discussed with respect to claims 11 and 17 (Br. 9). Specifically, Appellants
argue their invention is not unpatentable over Gopalkrishnan and Phipps
because the references do not teach or suggest “a component that actually
automatically generates an existing dimensional model from an initial object
model, or a method step of automatically generating the existing
dimensional model from an initial object model, where the dimensional
model preserves the relationships set out in the underlying object model” (id.
at 9-10).
The Examiner maintains that “Gopalkrishnan describes the
‘Relational DW level’ comprising the Wrapper/Monitor being
‘Relational/OO’ which [h]as been interpreted as the ‘initial object model’
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

15
from which the ‘Star/Snowflake schema’ … represents the object
relationships in an initial object model and relational relationships in a
relational database of the ‘Relational DW level’” (Ans. 8-9).

Issue 4: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding
Gopalkrishnan teaches a dimensional model generator configured to
automatically generate the existing dimensional model from an initial object
model, or automatically generating the existing dimensional model from the
initial object model?

ANALYSIS
Appellants again are arguing a limitation not recited in the claim, i.e.,
“where the dimensional model preserves the relationships set out in the
underlying object model.” As discussed above, with respect to Issues 1 and
2, we find Gopalkrishnan teaches a dimensional model generated from an
initial object model. Appellants provide no other arguments or evidence to
dispute the Examiner’s findings. Thus, we find that Appellants have failed
to show the Examiner erred in finding Gopalkrishnan teaches a dimensional
model generator configured to automatically generate the existing
dimensional model from an initial object model, or automatically generating
the existing dimensional model from the an initial object model.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding
Gopalkrishnan teaches a dimensional model that represents object
relationships in an initial object model and relational relationships in a
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

16
relational database. Thus, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in
finding claims 1 and 12 are anticipated by Gopalkrishnan. Since claims 2-10
and 13-16 depend from representative and independent claims 1 and 12 and
claims 2-10 and 13-16 were not argued separately, claims 2-10 and 13-16
fall with representative claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, Appellants have not
shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12-16 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Gopalkrishnan. Appellants have also not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious under Gopalkrishnan and Kimball.
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that
Gopalkrishnan teaches or suggests a dimensional model automatically
generated from an initial object model. Thus, Appellants have not shown
the Examiner erred in concluding claims 11 and 17 are obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gopalkrishnan and Phipps.
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding
Gopalkrishnan teaches “an entity generator generating an object model
based on the existing dimensional model, the object model providing a view
of the data that is different from a view provided by the initial object model”
as claimed. Thus, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding
claims 18 and 29 are anticipated by Gopalkrishnan. Since claims 19-27, 30
and 31 depend from representative and independent claims 18 and 29 and
claims 19-27, 30 and 31 were not argued separately, claims 19-27, 30 and 31
are also found to be anticipated by Gopalkrishnan. Accordingly, Appellants
have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18-27 and 29-31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gopalkrishnan.
Appeal 2009-004183
Application 10/387,052

17
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding
Gopalkrishnan teaches a dimensional model generator configured to
automatically generate the existing dimensional model from an initial object
model, or automatically generating the existing dimensional model from the
initial object mode. Thus, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in
concluding claims 28 and 32 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Gopalkrishnan and Phipps.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18-27 and 29-31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gopalkrishnan is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Gopalkrishnan and Kimball is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 17, 28 and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Gopalkrishnan and Phipps is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED
nhl

WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402