GraphSQL, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 10, 2021

2020003687 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/486,259 09/15/2014 Yu Xu 775.0006 9537
76444 7590 11/10/2021
Setter Roche LLP
1860 Blake Street
Suite 100
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
ELLIS, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2152
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/10/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte YU XU
________________

Appeal 2020-003687
Application 14/486,259
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JASON J. CHUNG, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM and enter a new ground of rejection pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
INVENTION
The invention relates to providing incremental graph view
maintenance. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, GraphSQL, Inc. is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003687
Application 14/486,259

2
1. A method of operating a graph maintenance module
implemented by a computer processor to provide graph view
maintenance, the method comprising:
identifying a modification to a relational database;
identifying graph views from a plurality of graph views in
a graph database associated with the modification to the
relational database, wherein the plurality of graph views each
comprise one or more nodes or edges generated from the
relational database;
identifying a graph modification for each of the graph
views based on the modification to the relational database;
implementing the graph modifications in the graph views;
identifying a query associated with a graph view of the
graph views; and
generating a response to the query based on the graph view
with the graph modification.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).

REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Byrne (US 2012/0221558 A1;
published Aug. 30, 2012) and Reiner (US 9,495,062 B1 issued November
15, 2016; filed June 27, 2013). Final Act. 2–7.
ANALYSIS
I. Claims 1–20 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds Reiner teaches making a change to an object in a
relational database and providing perspective graph views to reflect the
change, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “identifying graph views
from a plurality of graph views in a graph database associated with the
modification to the relational database, wherein the plurality of graph views
Appeal 2020-003687
Application 14/486,259

3
each comprise one or more nodes or edges generated from the relational
database” recited in claim 1. Ans. 3–4 (citing Reiner, 8:23–30, 19:6–15,
24:23–36); Final Act. 3–4 (citing Reiner, 8:23–30, 19:6–14, 24:30–50). The
Examiner finds Reiner teaches providing perspective graph views in the
form of heat-map views that show changes, which the Examiner maps to the
limitation “identifying a graph modification for each of the graph views
based on the modification to the relational database” recited in claim 1.
Ans. 5–6 (citing Reiner, 7:67–8:5, 8:23–30, 19:6–15); Final Act. 3–4 (citing
Reiner, 8:23–30, 10:55–65, 19:6–14, 24:30–50).
Appellant argues Reiner merely teaches that a relational database
stores IT objects in an IT environment that are used to form graphs rather
than pre-existing graph views corresponding to changes are stored in a
relational database. Appeal Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 2–3. We disagree with
Appellant.
As an initial matter, “[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset
because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.” See
In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). In particular, we note that
“existing” or “pre-existing” are not recited in the claims. Moreover, the
Examiner concludes the same. Ans. 6–7.
Reiner teaches making a change (i.e., modification) to an object in a
relational database and providing perspective graph views (i.e., the raw
graph data in Reiner’s relational database is identified) to reflect the change,
which teaches the limitation “identifying graph views from a plurality of
graph views in a graph database associated with the modification to the
relational database, wherein the plurality of graph views each comprise one
or more nodes or edges generated from the relational database” recited in
Appeal 2020-003687
Application 14/486,259

4
claim 1. Ans. 3–4 (citing Reiner, 8:23–30, 19:6–15, 24:23–36); Final
Act. 3–4 (citing Reiner, 8:23–30, 19:6–14, 24:30–50). Additionally, Reiner
teaches providing perspective graph views in the form of heat-map views
(i.e., the raw graph data in Reiner’s relational database is identified and then
used to generate Reiner’s heat-map views) that show changes, which teaches
the limitation “identifying a graph modification for each of the graph views
based on the modification to the relational database” recited in claim 1.
Ans. 5–6 (citing Reiner, 7:67–8:5, 8:23–30, 19:6–15); Final Act. 3–4 (citing
Reiner, 8:23–30, 10:55–65, 19:6–14, 24:30–50).
Appellant does not argue claims 2–20 separately with particularity.
Appeal Br. 7–10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection for:
(1) independent claims 1, 9, and 17; and (2) 2–8, 10–16, and 18–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments 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)(iv) (2019).
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new
ground of rejection for claims 1–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions,
the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the
metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex
parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211–1212 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Appeal 2020-003687
Application 14/486,259

5
In this case, we conclude that there are two or more reasonable
constructions for the limitation “identifying graph views from a plurality of
graph views in a graph database” (emphases added) and “identifying a graph
modification for each of the graph views” (emphasis added) recited in claim
1 (and similarly recited in claim 9). Specifically, it is unclear whether “each
of the graph views” has antecedence back to the recitation of “identifying
graph views” or the recitation of “a plurality of graph views.”
Accordingly, we enter a new ground of rejection for claims 1–162
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).

CONCLUSION

TIME PERIOD
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of

2 We note that independent claim 17 recites different language from
independent claims 1 and 9. In particular, claim 17’s “the plurality of graph
views” does not appear to have two or more reasonable constructions, as
discussed for claims 1 and 9. However, the limitation does appear to lack
antecedent basis in the claim. For this reason, in the event of further
prosecution, the Examiner may want to consider whether claim 17 should
recite “a plurality of graph views” or the like.
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1–20 103 Byrne, Reiner 1–20
1–16 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–16
Overall
Outcome
1–20 1–16
Appeal 2020-003687
Application 14/486,259

6
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that 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 prosecution 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 . . . .
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)