Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 13, 2012

09967553 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LARRY BROWN, JAMES C. KLEEWEIN, RONG QU, BERTHOLD REINWALD, PETER M. SCHWARZ, and CHARLES DANIEL WOLFSON ____________ Appeal 2011-005579 Application 09/967,553 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005579 Application 09/967,553 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-10 and 81-127, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Representative Claim 1. A computer implemented method for enabling invocation of an external service at a service provider server from a database in a database computer system, comprising: accessing from over a network a description of the external service published by the service provider external to the database, wherein the database manages data and includes a database engine to perform queries; generating a user defined function from the accessed description of the external service, wherein the user defined function is included in database language statements executed by the database to invoke the external service and resides on the database; invoking, by the database, the user defined function by executing the database language statements including the user defined function within the database to invoke the external service and perform a query with respect to the external service; and receiving, at the database, data from the external service in response to invoking and interacting with the external service. Prior Art Preisig US 2002/0184219 A1 Dec. 5, 2002 (filed May 31, 2001) Murto US 2004/0213409 A1 Oct. 28, 2004 (filed May 15, 2001) Appeal 2011-005579 Application 09/967,553 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-10 and 81-127 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Murto. Claims 1-10 and 81-84 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Preisig. ANALYSIS Section 102 rejection of claims 1-10 and 81-127 over Murto Claim 1 recites “invoking, by the database, the user defined function by executing the database language statements including the user defined function within the database to invoke the external service and perform a query with respect to the external service.” Appellants contend that Murto discusses how a wireless device searches a UDDI registry to obtain information on businesses and services, but does not disclose database language statements executed by the database to invoke the external service and perform a query with respect to the external service. App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 1-4. We agree with Appellants. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Murto. Each of independent claims 90 and 109 contains a limitation similar to that of claim 1 for which the rejection fails. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-10 and 81-127 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Murto. Section 102 rejection of claims 1-10 and 81-84 over Preisig Appellants contend that Preisig discusses how a client, using an HTTP request, invokes an SQL statement to execute against a database and return Appeal 2011-005579 Application 09/967,553 4 results back to a client, but does not describe invoking, by the database, the user defined function by executing the database language statements including the user defined function within the database to invoke the external service that does not reside on the database. App. Br. 19-21; Reply Br. 7-9. We agree with Appellants. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-10 and 81-84 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Preisig. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-10 and 81-127 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Murto is reversed. The rejection of claims 1-10 and 81-84 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Preisig is reversed. REVERSED babc