Ex Parte Cushing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

10855818 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID CUSHING, MARIUS COSMA, NEIL WARNER, and HELMUT BEFFERT ____________________ Appeal 2010-003223 Application 10/855,818 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ERIC S. FRAHM, and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003223 Application 10/855,818 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-15, all the claims pending in the application. Claim 9 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appellants’ Disclosed Invention Appellants disclose a system and method of multidimensional query results processing (Spec. ¶ [0001]). Exemplary Claims An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1, 5, 6, and 7, which are reproduced below with emphases added: 1. A system for processing a multidimensional (MD) data set produced from an execution of multidimensional query on a MD data source, the MD data set comprising data for a report described by a report specification based on an entity/relationship (ER) schema, the system comprising: a result set description generation module producing a result set description matching the semantics of the report specification based on the-ER schema from a MD data set description describing the semantics of the MD data set using result processing information; and a tabular row generation module converting the MD data set into a collection of rows of data to generate a result set of the report output as a tabular result set when the ER report specification conforms to a tabular report. 5. The method as claimed in claim 4, further comprising producing a full stack of members representing a row of data, 1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed May 11, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 19, 2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 19, 2009). Appeal 2010-003223 Application 10/855,818 3 producing the full stack of members including: pushing a highest-level member of a dimension onto a stack; traversing parent/child relationships within a dimension along an edge to push each member at each level onto the stack; popping a top member off the stack; and pushing all siblings of the top member onto the stack. 6. The method as claimed in claim 4, further comprising creating a header row, including: setting a state of header to header nested; performing a check header nested; performing a check header current; performing a check header done; performing a check children; performing a check nested; performing a check current; performing a check sibling; and performing a check ancestor. 7. The method as claimed in claim 4, further comprising creating a header row, including: setting a state of an element to header nested; checking for nested dimensions until there are no more; setting the state of the element to check header current; filling the dimension with nested fillers; determining a summary level; setting the state of the element to header done; removing the nested dimension fillers; checking all children of the element until there are no more children; setting the state of the element to check nested; Appeal 2010-003223 Application 10/855,818 4 determining if there are any nested elements; filling a current dimension with nested dimension fillers; setting the state of the element to check siblings; moving the MDDS Iterator to the next sibling; keeping a row copy; and setting the state to check ancestor. The Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Cras ‘681 (US 2002/0091681 A1) and Cras ‘195 (US 2002/0059195 A1).2 Ans. 3-8. Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend (App. Br. 13-20; Reply Br. 2-6) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195 for numerous reasons, including:3 2 Because (i) claims 12-15 depend from independent claim 11 rejected under § 103(a) over the combination of Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195, and (ii) the Examiner rejected claims 12-15 under the same combination (see Ans. 7-8), we consider the omission of claims 12-15 from the heading statement to be an oversight, and harmless error. Accordingly, we consider claims 1-8 and 10-15 to be rejected under § 103(a) over Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195. 3 Appellants present arguments on the merits with regard to independent claim 1 (see App. Br. 13-17). Independent claims 10 and 11 recite similar limitations and are not argued separately from independent claim 1. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2, 3, and 12-15 which depend from claim 1 (see App. Br. 13-20; Reply Br. 2-6). Appellants merely recite claim language for independent claim 4 (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 3), which is not considered an argument for separate patentability. Separate patentability is argued for dependent claims 5, 6, and 7 (see App. Br. 17-20; Reply Br. 3-6). Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claim 8, which depends from claim 7. Therefore, we select the following representative claims: (1) claim 1 as representative of the group of claims 1- Appeal 2010-003223 Application 10/855,818 5 (1) Cras ‘681 fails to teach or suggest an entity relationship (ER) schema, a multidimensional (MD) data set description, and generating a result set, as recited in representative claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 4, 10, and 11 (App. Br. 13-17; Reply Br. 2-3); (2) the use or discussion of an ER schema (or its equivalent) and an MD data set description generated from the ER schema is absent from Cras ‘681 (Reply Br. 2-3); (3) Cras ‘681 fails to teach or suggest producing a full stack of members representing a row of data, as recited in claim 5 (App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 3-4); (4) Cras ‘681 fails to teach or suggest creating a header row including nine separate sub-steps, as recited in claim 6 (App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 4- 5); and (5) Cras ‘681 fails to teach or suggest creating a header row including fifteen separate sub-steps, as recited in representative claim 7 (App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 5-6). Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-4 and 10-15 because the combination of Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195 fails to teach or suggest an ER schema, MD data set description, and generating a result set, as set forth in representative claim 1? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 5-8 because Cras’ 681 fails to teach or suggest the steps of producing a full stack of members representing 4 and 10-15; and (2) claim 7 as representative of the group of claims 7 and 8. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We treat claim 5 and 6 separately. Appeal 2010-003223 Application 10/855,818 6 a row of data (claim 5) and creating a header row (claims 6-8) as recited in those claims? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contention in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 13-20) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-6) that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’ contentions as to claims 5-8 because paragraphs [0089], [0117], [0151]-[0154], and [0156] of Cras ‘681 do not disclose, teach, or suggest producing a full stack or creating a header row including all of the detailed steps set forth in claims 5-8 as asserted by the Examiner (see Ans. 5-7 and 15-18). Furthermore, we do not agree with the Examiner that these features of claims 5-8 would have been obvious as “steps in a memory that must be taken to traverse a tree” (Ans. 15, 17, and 18). With regard to claims 1-4 and 10-15, we disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-5 and 7-14). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows. Although the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 10-15 is based on a combination of references, namely Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195, Appellants only present arguments with respect to Cras ‘681 (see e.g., App. Br. 16). Cras ‘195, referred to by the Examiner as “C” (see Ans. 3), was relied on by the Examiner as disclosing generation of a result set based on an ER schema Appeal 2010-003223 Application 10/855,818 7 from a MD data set (see Ans. 4 citing paragraphs [0004], [0006], and [0061]-[0064] of Cras ‘195). We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding Cras ‘195 (Ans. 4), and as a result, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195 teaches or suggests Appellants’ invention as recited in claim 1.4 We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 10-11 and 14) that Cras ‘681 teaches using a relational database that is known by those having ordinary skill in the art to include an entity relationship schema. Notably, Appellants do not rebut the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to derive an entity relationship schema from a relational database or otherwise contend the Examiner’s conclusion regarding the correlation between a relational database and an ER schema (see generally Reply Br. 2- 6). In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-4 and 10-15, and we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5-8. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4 and 10-15 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195. 4 Notably, Cras ‘681 also discloses creating an analytical report on top of a multidimensional model built on top of a relational or multidimensional database, and organizing data using a cube structure (Cras ‘681 ¶¶ [0003]- [0008] and [0012]). Appeal 2010-003223 Application 10/855,818 8 (2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5-8 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Cras ‘681 and Cras ‘195. (3) Claims 1-4 and 10-15 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART peb