Ex Parte Dheap et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 13, 2016

12728780 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121728,780 03/22/2010 75916 7590 04/15/2016 IBM AUS IPLA W (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC 4521 Copper Mountain Lane Richardson, TX 75082 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR VIJAYDHEAP 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. AUS920100014US1 5981 EXAMINER ZAIDI, SYED A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2493 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/15/2016 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): dpandya@garglaw.com uspto@garglaw.com garglaw@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VIJA Y DHEAP, ABHINA YA RA VIND ER NAGP AL, SANDEEP R. PATIL, and YAN STEIN Appeal2014-009663 Application 12/728,7801 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corp. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-009663 Application 12/728,780 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to a computer- implemented method, system, and computer-usable program code for applying a security policy as a query predicate. Spec. i-f 1. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added): 1. A computer implemented method for applying a security policy as a query predicate, the computer implemented method comprising: receiving a query, the query being a request for data, the query being directed to a data repository executing in a data processing system; identifying the security policy, the security policy being a security policy applicable to the query; determining a predicate corresponding to the security policy; modifying the query to include the predicate; modifj;ing a schema of the data repository to process the predicate by combining a part of a second schema with the schema, wherein the schema of the data repository comprises a plurality of tables forming a database, wherein the second schema comprises at least one table that is external to the database, wherein the predicate cannot be processed using data 2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Apr. 14, 2014); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 4, 2014); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 18, 2014); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Dec. 5, 2013); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Mar. 22, 2010). 2 Appeal2014-009663 Application 12/728,780 available in the schema alone, and wherein the second schema corresponds to the security policy; and sending the modified query to the data repository. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Hall et al. ("Hall") US 5,675,785 Oct. 7, 1997 Hui et al. ("Hui") US 2005/0055336 Al Mar. 10, 2005 Lei US 2008/0313134 A 1 Dec. 18, 2008 Rejections on Appeal RI. Claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Lei and Hall. Final Act. 5. R2. Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Lei, Hall, and Hui. Final Act. 19. CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 10-16), we decide the appeal of Rejection RI of claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20 on the basis of representative claim 1. We separately address remaining claims 7 and 14 in Rejection R2, infra. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments 3 Appeal2014-009663 Application 12/728,780 which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to representative claim 1, and we incorporate herein and 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 and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding representative claim 1 for emphasis as follows. 1. Â§ 103(a) Rejection RI of Claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20 Issue Appellants argue (App. Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 2-5) the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Lei and Hall is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests the contested limitation of claim 1, i.e.: modifYing a schema of the data repository to process the predicate by combining a part of a second schema with the schema, wherein the schema of the data repository comprises a plurality of tables forming a database, wherein the second schema comprises at least one table that is external to the database, wherein the predicate cannot be processed using data available in the schema alone, and wherein the second schema corresponds to the security policy ... [?] 4 Appeal2014-009663 Application 12/728,780 Analysis Appellants contend: [HJall only teaches a method for modifying a query by combining two columns in the existing schema to create a common column in the existing schema. These teachings in Hall are insufficient to teach or suggest all the features of claim 1. As is evident from the plain text of the claim, the combining occurs across different schemas, not within a single schema. [C]ombining tables or table columns within a schema of a single database is insufficient to teach or suggest combining tables or table columns inside a database with tables or table columns outside the database. App. Br. 15. Appellants further contend "Examiner's argument suffers from a similar fundamental flaw. A table is a part of a database schema; a table is not itself the database schema." Reply Br. 2. However, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the Examiner's finding that Hall's fact tables, which reside on different machines and different DBMSs, which can be partitioned across multiple servers, teach or at least suggest a plurality of "schemas," where a "second schema comprises at least one table that is external to the database," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3 (citing Hall, col. 8:60-9:25). Appellants do not point to particular definition in the Specification or present other evidence that would preclude the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation that the claim term "schemas" encompass Hall's fact tables. In fact, claim 1 defines "schema" in accord with the Examiner's interpretation: "wherein the 5 Appeal2014-009663 Application 12/728,780 schema of the data repository comprises a plurality of tables forming a database." Furthennore, the Supreme Court has determined the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the inten-elated teachings of nrnltip1e patents, the effects of demands known to the design cormnunity or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skmed artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 420-21. In KSR, the Court stated "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KS.1?., 550 U.S. at 416. Here, Appellants have presented no evidence that combining Hall's fact tables to process Lei's predicate was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skilI in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art" Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Thus, we find Appellants' invention is simply a combination of known teachings that would have realized a predictable result. In particular, we find processing a predicate by combining fact tables across multiple databases, as claimed, was known in the art, and well within the capability of an artisan having ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by the teachings and suggestions of Hall. See Hall, claim 1. 6 Appeal2014-009663 Application 12/728,780 Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1, and the grouped claims which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 2. Â§ 103(a) Rejection R2 of Claims 7 and 14 In view of the lack of any substantive arguments directed to obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 7 and 14 underÂ§ 103 (see App. Br. 16), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. When Appellants do not substantively argue the patentability of dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 14. REPLY BRIEF To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-5) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a reply brief that were not raised in the appeal brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's Answer will not be considered except for good cause. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41 (b )(2). 7 Appeal2014-009663 Application 12/728,780 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections RI and R2 of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8