Ex Parte Constanzo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2015

12275715 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte LUCA CONSTANZO and DANIELA FERRALASCO ____________________ Appeal 2013-000902 Application 12/275,715 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a module for managing data objects of a database. Spec. 1, ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2013-000902 Application 12/275,715 2 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium including a module for managing data objects of a database, the module being executed by a computer to configure the computer to: create a main table containing at least one common field associated with the data objects, the at least one common field being an element of each data object and having a first structure; create a first system table containing at least one definition of at least one custom field associated with a data object of said main table, the at least one custom field being a particular element of said data object in said main table, said at least one definition defining a second structure for said at least one custom field different from the first structure; and create a second system table containing at least one value associated with the at least one custom field. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Millet US 2003/0154197 A1 Aug. 14, 2003 REJECTION Claims 1–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Millet. Ans. 2–4. We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants 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) (2012). Appeal 2013-000902 Application 12/275,715 3 ISSUE 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 1–10 Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Millet. App. Br. 4–14. The issue presented by the arguments is: Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Millet discloses a module “being executed by a computer to configure the computer to” create the recited tables, as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 10? ANALYSIS Appellants contend Millet does not disclose the relational database management system operates to configure a computer to create the recited tables. App. Br. 7. Instead, according to Appellants, Millet teaches away from the recited invention because it teaches custom tables must be created by an Application Programmer at the time of database creation. Id. Further, Appellants contend paragraph 77 of Millet does not disclose a web server or other computer creates the tables. Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Initially, we note a teaching away argument is not germane to an anticipation rejection. See Twin Disc, Inc. v. U.S., 10 C1. Ct. 713, 728 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344 (CCPA 1982)). Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Millet describes the invention as recited, and specifically, Millet discloses a module being executed by a computer to configure the computer to create the recited tabled. Ans. 2–4. Final Act. 3–5. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion that “the specification of MILLET is unambiguous that a person, i.e. an application developer (i.e., a computer programmer) must first create Appeal 2013-000902 Application 12/275,715 4 the table of MILLET.” Reply Br. 2. As noted by the Examiner, Millet discloses the invention may be “implemented on a web server or other computer in the form of a set of executable instructions or software modules.” Ans. 3; Millet, ¶ 77. Thus, Millet discloses the computer may be configured to execute the method described in the patent, which includes creating the tables. Appellants additionally argue “MILLET [does] not provide any teaching that would enable a skilled person to actually accomplish this feature of Appellants’ claimed invention.” Reply Br. 3. Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the disclosure in Millet would not have been enabling to an ordinarily skilled artisan. To the contrary, we observe Millet provides a number of flowcharts describing algorithms that may be implemented as a computer executable program. See, e.g., Millet, Figs. 16–22. Thus, we are not persuaded the disclosure of Millet would not have been enabling to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Furthermore, Appellants point to paragraph 38 of their Specification as disclosing this recited feature. App. Br. 2. The Specification of the present invention states, similarly to Millet, “[i]mplementing the module M in a computer executable program allows an easy deployment of the module M to clients and ensures a high degree of usability as a computer is the only infrastructure needed for using the module M.” Spec. 10, ¶ 38. Appellants have not identified, nor could we readily find, any additional disclosure of how to implement the module in a computer executable program. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Millet discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 1 and Appeal 2013-000902 Application 12/275,715 5 commensurately recited independent claim 10. Dependent claims 2–9, not separately argued (App. Br. 14), fall with claim 1. As a result, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Millet. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Millet is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kis