Lihua Yan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2021

2019006527 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 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.
13/430,034 03/26/2012 Lihua Yan 21128 (2704.147US1) 6863
26890 7590 02/25/2021
Randy Campbell
TERADATA US, INC.
P.O. Box 190
Englewood, OH 45322
EXAMINER
DAVANLOU, SOHEILA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2021 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):
michelle.boldman@teradata.com
randy.campbell@teradata.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LIHUA YAN, ZHENRONG LI, and
EJAZ HAIDER
____________________

Appeal 2019-006527
Application 13/430,034
Technology Center 2100
____________________

JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19. Appeal Br. 6. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Teradata US,
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006527
Application 13/430,034

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A method implemented and programmed within a relational
database system and processed by one or more processors, the
processors configured to execute the method, comprising:
[A.] acquiring a data model and input data from said
relational database system, the input data housed in a relational
database maintained within said relational database system, said
data model defining format, attributes, and characteristics of said
input data;
[B.] normalizing the input data by combining at least some
fields associated with the input data into a single field in the
normalized input data and by altering a size and a type of at least
some other fields associated with the input data in the normalized
input data;
[C.] initiating a user defined function (UDF) to perform
custom-user defined calculations using the normalized data;
[D.] mapping output data produced from the UDF into a
normalized output format;
[E.] generating an updated data model based on the
mapped output data in the normalized output format; and
[F.] replacing said data model within said relational
database system with said updated data model.

Appeal 2019-006527
Application 13/430,034

3
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Bodily US 7,676,492 B2 Mar. 9, 2010
Thomson US 2011/0161371 A1 June 30, 2011
REJECTIONS3

A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Thomson and Bodily.
Final Act. 7–15.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The
contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection.
Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of
the § 103 rejection of claims 4–12, and 15–19 further herein.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s contentions we discuss
are dispositive as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s other
contentions are not discussed in detail herein.

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2019-006527
Application 13/430,034

4
A.1.
As reproduced supra, part E. of claim 1 requires (emphasis added):
[E.] generating an updated data model based on the mapped
output data in the normalized output format.
A.2.
In rejecting claim 1 (and independent claims 9 and 19), the Examiner
finds that the features of part E are taught in paragraphs 153, 166, 920, and
Figures 5, 26, and 124 of Thomson. Final Act. 9, 10.
The Examiner also finds:
Thompson [sic] in paragraph [0699] teaches the SQL Generator
is an Aptitude technology that allows developers to graphically
arrange, implement and deploy relational database entities.
As shown above, Thompson [sic] teaches the developers
may acquiring a data model/template and input data from
relational database system, the data model/template defining
format, attributes, and characteristics of the input data.
Further Thompson [sic] teaches the developers may
generating a template/data model and a tool to update/replace
data model based on the mapped output data.
Ans. 5.

A.3.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
Paragraph [0166] of Thomson et al. describes Application Form
Templates which define the layout of controls on a page. Figure
5 shows a form template with a menu. It is not seen how the
Application Form Template can be equated to a data model as
described in the specification and recited in claim 1 of the
present application, nor is it seen how the use of the tool menu
by a developer to change, add, or delete controls on a template,
can be interpreted as teaching or suggesting of “generating an
Appeal 2019-006527
Application 13/430,034

5
updated data model based on the mapped output data in the
normalized output format”, as described in the specification and
recited in claim 1 of the present application.

Appeal Br. 11–12.
Paragraph [0699] of Thomson et al. describes an SQL
generator that allows developers to graphically arrange,
implement and deploy relational database entities. It is not seen
that the SQL generator updates a data model based on mapped
data, or replaces the data model within a relational database
system with an updated data model.
Reply Br. 4.

A.4.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[P]reponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”).
“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . .
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We conclude the Examiner’s
analysis fails to meet this standard because the rejection does not adequately
explain the Examiner’s findings of fact.
It is not clear to us, and the Examiner has not sufficiently shown
(Final Act. 9, 10; Ans. 5), how the updating of the data model in Thomson is
connected to the mapped output data, as required by the claim. For example,
the Examiner identifies the mapped output data as Thomson’s calculated
Appeal 2019-006527
Application 13/430,034

6
account data (Figure 124) or the user session state (Figure 26). See Final
Action. Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner, then, does not sufficiently explain
how Thomson’s moving or adding of control buttons to update the data
model, i.e. the Application Form Template, is based on the account data or
the user session state. As such, we agree with Appellant that the
combination of Thomson and Bodily fails to disclose or suggest (Appeal Br.
12) “generating an updated data model based on the mapped output data in
the normalized output format” (claim 1, part E.). We conclude, consistent
with Appellant’s argument, that there is currently insufficient articulated
reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding that Thomson teaches, suggests,
or otherwise renders obvious limitation E as required by claim 1.
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning
to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention.

CONCLUSION
The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
Appeal 2019-006527
Application 13/430,034

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–12, 15–
19
103 Thomson, Bodily 1, 4–12, 15–
19

REVERSED