Ex Parte Dehn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2012

11647768 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte RENE DEHN, MARTIN KAISER, and GISELLA DOMINGUEZ ANZUINELLI ________________ Appeal 2010-004793 Application 11/647,768 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004793 Application 11/647,768 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 17 – 31. Claims 1 – 16 are canceled. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We affirm-in-part. Invention The invention relates to an article comprising software that receives update parameters, packed as a long byte string, for updating a data record in a database, unpacks the update parameters, and updates the data record in the database using the unpacked update parameters by returning the unpacked update parameters to a business application for database execution. See Abstract. Exemplary Claims (Emphasis Added) 17. An article comprising software for updating a database, the software comprising instructions stored on a tangible computer readable medium and operable when executed by a processor to: receive update parameters from a business application for updating a data record in a database, the update parameters packed in a generic format comprising a packed long byte string and independent of a particular database table structure, wherein the data recorded is associated with a database table; identify a database table structure associated with the database table; reformat the update parameters into the identified database table structure; and return the reformatted update parameters to the business application for storage in the database. Appeal 2010-004793 Application 11/647,768 3 24. An article comprising software for updating a database, the software comprising instructions stored on a tangible computer readable medium and operable when executed by a processor to: transmit update parameters for updating a database table in a database to an update module, wherein the update parameters represent data records packed into a generic format independent of a particular database table structure; receive update parameters for updating the database table in the database from the update module, wherein the update parameters are received in a database table structure associated with the database table; and update the database table in the database using the received update parameters. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 24 – 26 and 28 – 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bourbonnais (US 2005/0149584 A1; July 7, 2005). Ans. 9 – 11. The Examiner rejects claims 17 – 23 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bourbonnais and MacLeod (US 6,434,558 B1; Aug. 13, 2002). Ans. 4 – 9. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Bourbonnais and MacLeod teaches or suggests software operable to “reformat the update parameters into the identified database table structure,” as recited in claim 17? ANALYSIS Claim 17 includes the recitation of “reformat[ting] the update parameters into the identified database table structure.” The Examiner finds Appeal 2010-004793 Application 11/647,768 4 that Bourbonnais teaches or suggests this recitation by describing rules associated with business objects. See Ans. 5 (citing Bourbonnais ¶¶ [0064] and [0065]). The Examiner also finds that Bourbonnais teaches or suggests the disputed recitation because Bourbonnais also teaches supporting access and manipulation of data in a relational database management system (RDBMS) using structured query language (SQL) statements. See Ans.18. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because Bourbonnais merely discloses what data will be moved into an archive storage system and when the data will be moved, but does not teach or suggest reformatting update parameters into an identified database table structure. See App. Br. 5. Appellants also argue that “the Examiner fails to indicate how generally accessing and manipulating data using SQL statements for performing ‘format and reformat’ operations” teaches or suggests the disputed recitation. Reply Br. 2. The Examiner shows that Bourbonnais teaches or suggests general aspects of database management. See Ans. 4 – 5 and 17 – 18. However, the Examiner does not show how the references disclosure teaches or suggests reformatting update parameters into an identified database table structure. The Examiner also does not show that MacLeod cures this deficiency in Bourbonnais. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Bourbonnais and MacLeod teaches or suggests software operable to “reformat the update parameters into the identified database table structure,” as recited in claim 17. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 17 and dependent claims 18 – 23. Appeal 2010-004793 Application 11/647,768 5 Regarding claim 24, which does not recite software operable to “reformat the update parameters into the identified database table structure,” and to “return the reformatted update parameters to the business application for storage in the database,” Appellants present no separate arguments. See App. Br. 4 – 6; Reply Br. 1 – 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of independent claim 24, and claims 25 – 31, which are dependent thereon. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17 – 23 is reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 24 – 31 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART msc