Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 2016

12706154 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121706,154 02/16/2010 QimingChen 56436 7590 02/29/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82259120 ll05 EXAMINER LODHI, ANDALIB FT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/29/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte QIMING CHEN and MEICHUN HSU Appeal2014-004915 Application 12/706, 154 Technology Center 2100 Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 11-18, and 20. Claims 7-10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base independent claims, but otherwise reciting allowable subject matter, and are not subject to appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the Real Party in Interest. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal2014-004915 Application 12/706, 154 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to middleware integrated within a database engine. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computing system comprising: hardware; a database engine implemented by the hardware; and, middleware integrated within the database engine and implemented by the hardware to execute a functional-form query representing a dataflow graph comprising a plurality of queries and a plurality of relation valued functions, wherein the middleware is to interact with the database engine to cause the database engine to execute the queries, and wherein each relation valued function receives a plurality of first relations as input and generates a second relation as output. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1---6, 11-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Snodgrass et al. (US 2004/0117359 Al, pub. June 17, 2004) and Hill (US 2010/0049733 Al, pub. Feb. 25, 2010). (Final Act. 4--8.) ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issue:2 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 5, 2013); the Reply Brief 2 Appeal2014-004915 Application 12/706, 154 Whether the combination of Snodgrass and Hill teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation, "middleware integrated within the database engine," and the similar limitations recited in independent claims 16 and 20. (App. Br. 3-7.) ANALYSIS For the claim limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Snodgrass of middleware that "overlays" a database engine. (Final Act. 5; Ans. 4--5; Snodgrass Fig, 1, i-fi-f 10, 15, 16, 37, 41.) Appellants argue: The plain meaning of the word 'within' is 'in or into the interior or inner part; inside,' per dictionary.com. As such, in the claimed invention, the middleware is integrated inside the database engine. By comparison, in Snodgrass in view of Hill, the middleware is on top of and thus outside the database engine, which is directly contrary to the invention as claimed. (App. Br. 4.) The Examiner responds by apparently construing "integrating" as encompassing "overlaying": [N]ote that a database-based application processing temporal queries from a user capable of entering queries, where application comprising the following layers: a user application layer for interaction between the user and said database-based application for entering queries, a middleware layer overlying refer as "integrating or interacting' a Database Management System (DBMS) .... (Ans. 5.) (filed Mar. 3, 2014); the Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 4, 2013); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jan. 3, 2014) for the respective details. 3 Appeal2014-004915 Application 12/706, 154 We are not persuaded that "a middleware layer overlying a Database Management System (DBMS)" is reasonably encompassed within the scope of the requirement for "middleware integrated within the database engine." (Snodgrass i-f 15.) Nor has the Examiner provided reasoning or other citations to the record which would allow us to sustain the rejection. Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1, 16, and 20. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 16, and 20. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2---6, 11-15, 17, and 18, which claims depend from claims 1 or 16. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 11-18, and 20 is reversed. 3 REVERSED 3 Should there be further proceedings in this matter, we note that claim 20 is directed to "A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program for execution by a processor .... " This raises the issue of whether the claim encompasses transitory embodiments and is therefore directed to unpatentable subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential). 4