Ex Parte Zeggert

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 21, 2008

09969429 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 21, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DEBRA L. ZEGGERT
____________________

Appeal 2007-3566
Application 09/969,4291
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: April 21, 2008
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JAY P. LUCAS, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals from a final rejection of claims 1 to 25 under
authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
(BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Application filed October 2, 2001. The real party in interest is IBM Corp.

Appeal 2007-3566
Application 09/969,429

Appellant’s invention relates to a method (and system) for facilitating
the conversion of data from one database to another, potentially with a
different format for the data. In the words of the Appellant:
The present invention overcomes the drawbacks of the
related art by providing a data converting system and method.
Specifically, under the present invention, a collection of data
records having data fields for storing data entries is received
from a first application. Each data entry is tagged with a
corresponding data header to create a relationship therebetween.
A table is then constructed based upon the data records whereby
the sets of tagged data entries and data headers are separately
arranged into rows. These rows also include a record identifier
corresponding to the data entry. A report based upon the table
can then be generated by a second application. Thus, even if
the collection of records includes a data field with more than
one data entry, the individual tagging and organizing of the data
entries into a separate row of the table allows the data to be
accurately manipulated and/or reported by the second
application.
(Spec., page 3, Summary)
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for converting data from a first format to a second format,
comprising the steps of:

providing a plurality of data fields for storing data entries, wherein at
least one of the data fields has a plurality of data entries that are not
separately addressed, and wherein each data field has an associated data
header and an associated record identifier; and

building a table based upon the data entries, wherein the table
comprises rows having a single data entry, a corresponding data header, and
a corresponding record identifier in separate field from the corresponding
data header.

2
Appeal 2007-3566
Application 09/969,429

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Salas US 5,317,686 May 31, 1994
Shin US 5,557,787 Sep. 17, 1996
Nelson US 6,601,065 B1 Jul. 29, 2003

Rejections:
R1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) for being obvious over Shin in view of Salas.
R2: Claims 3, 5 to 10, 12, 14, 16, 19 to 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) for being obvious over Shin in view of Salas, further in
view of Nelson.
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not rendered
obvious by Shin alone, or in combination with Salas and Nelson, for reasons
to be discussed more fully below. The Examiner contends that each of the
claims is properly rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this opinion. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).2

2 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in
each group, except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590 (Fed.
Cir. 1991).
3
Appeal 2007-3566
Application 09/969,429

We reverse the rejections.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue turns on whether
Salas teaches claimed limitations.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection
[under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness
or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).
“To reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner
must show an unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. . . . On appeal to
the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient
evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case
with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” [citations removed]
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

4
Appeal 2007-3566
Application 09/969,429

ANALYSIS
From our review of the administrative record, we find that the
Examiner has presented a prima facie case for the rejections of Appellant's
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The prima facie case is presented on pages 3
to 11 of the Examiner’s Answer. In general, the Examiner states that Shin
discloses all the limitations of representative claim 1, except:
Shin does not disclose that data fields in the table may have a plurality
of entries. However, Salas discloses a method in which a cross-
tabbing method like the one disclosed by Shin may be performed on a
table in which data fields have a plurality of data entries, in which the
data entries contained in one cell are addressed as one (Figures 2a-2b;
column 8, line 60 - column 10, line 5 . . .).
(Examiner’s Answer 4, first paragraph)
In opposition, Appellant presents a number of arguments against both
rejections R1 and R2. The first argument3 addresses the issue of whether
Salas does indeed “teach or suggest a data field that has a plurality of data
entries that are not separately addressed.” (Brief 7, top.)
We find that Salas teaches a spreadsheet-like table in which group
words can act as labels for cells that contain numerous data entries. (See col.
12, ll. 21 to 45.) These group labels can serve in calculations where they
stand for all the data entries to which the label applies. Thus, in the example
in column 12, line 35 of the patent, “Saab” stands for all of the data elements
across the row denoted by the label Saab, in the outlined “area 21.” As the

3 A preliminary argument, namely what constitutes a field, is alluded to in
the Brief (Page 6, five lines from bottom). Usually a field is an element in a
record, in a database. However, both Appellant and the Examiner express
their arguments as though spreadsheet cells or named groups of cells
constitute a field, so this opinion will remain consistent with that
terminology.
5
Appeal 2007-3566
Application 09/969,429

Examiner states on page 12 of the Examiner’s Answer, “[t]hus, as shown the
fields in Salas teach more than one element may be contained in
correspondence with each data header and record identifier. The multiple
data entries that correspond to one cell as shown in Salas can be addressed
together as one, or in other words not separately addressed. . . ."
Salas, then, clearly teaches that one field may contain a plurality of
data entries that may be addressed as a group. On the other hand, the claim
expresses its limitation in the negative, to wit: “wherein at least one of the
data fields has a plurality of data entries that are not separately addressed.”
Are any or all of the data entries in Salas’ “groups” separately addressed?
The answer is “yes,” each of the data elements may be separately addressed.
Note the cell marked as “47a” as an example, in the Saab region in Figure
4a, and as described in column 10, lines 49 to 64. That one data element,
and indeed all data elements, may be individually referenced by combining
the labels of the applicable row and column that contain that cell. Thus,
although Salas teaches that a field of individual data elements may be
addressed and treated as a group, they do not lose their ability to be
separately addressed. Thus, an essential limitation of the claim has not been
revealed in the references.
As the limitation “wherein at least one of the data fields has a plurality
of data entries that are not separately addressed,” is in all the independent
claims, the noted error pervades the rejection of all the claims.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 to 25.
6
Appeal 2007-3566
Application 09/969,429

DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 25 is reversed.
REVERSED

clj

HOFFMAN, WARNICK & D'ALESSANDRO, LLC
75 STATE STREET
14TH FLOOR
ALBANY, NY 12207

7