Ex Parte Fish et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2012

11044747 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/044,747 01/27/2005 Douglas R. Fish ROC920040203US1 1872 46797 7590 09/17/2012 IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1 3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829 EXAMINER LY, ANH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DOUGLAS R. FISH, HOA T. TRAN, and DAVID A. WALL ____________________ Appeal 2010-004522 Application 11/044,747 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004522 Application 11/044,747 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-16. Claims 17-20 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system and method for accessing data in data repositories with a system comprising user defined table functions (UDTFs) and a metadata processor (Abstract). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claims 1. A computer-implemented method performed by one or more computer processors, the method comprising: receiving a first query that is created by a user, and which references a first user-defined table function (UDTF); responsive to the received first query, calling the referenced first user-defined table function; calling a second user-defined table function referenced by the called first user-defined table function; submitting a second query to gather attributes comprising security attributes of the user and attributes of the called second UDTF; and submitting a third query to query a table based on the gathered attributes. 10. A computer implemented method performed by one or more computer processors, the method comprising: providing a calling application that submits a first query which is created by a user; receiving the first query, which references a first user- defined table function (UDTF); Appeal 2010-004522 Application 11/044,747 3 responsive to the received first query, calling the referenced first UDTF; calling a second user-defined table function referenced by the called first UDTF; and calling a metadata processor referenced by the called second UDTF for performing operations related to providing data to the second UDTF, wherein the operations comprise: submitting a second query to gather attributes comprising security attributes of the user and attributes of the second UDTF; receiving query results which correspond to the second query; using the query results which correspond to the second query, forming a third query based on the attributes comprising security attributes of the user and attributes of the second UDTF; submitting the third query against the table; and providing query results which correspond to the third query to the second UDTF. Prior Art Dutta US 2005/0177570 A1 Aug. 11, 2005 Milby US 6,938,044 B1 Aug. 30, 2005 Brunswig US 2006/0080289 A1 Apr. 13, 2006 Rejections (1) Claims 1, 3-6, and 10-13 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Brunswig and Milby. (2) Claims 2, 7-9, and 14-16 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Brunswig, Milby, and Dutta. Appeal 2010-004522 Application 11/044,747 4 GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 1 to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1 and 3-6. (See App. Br. 10-13). Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 10 to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 10-13. (See App. Br. 10-13). 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)(vii) (2007). ISSUE 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) obvious over Brunswig and Milby Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Brunswig and Milby because Brunswig does not teach or suggest “a second query is submitted to gather attributes … of the called second UDTF [user-defined table function]” or “using the query results which correspond to the second query, forming a third query based on the attributes” (Br. 11-12). Specifically, according to Appellants, Brunswig teaches a single query that is split into a second query and a third query, each executed for a subset of search conditions, with query results that are combined into a single aspect that is used to provide report results (Br. 11). However, Appellants assert, Brunswig does not disclose a third query based on attributes gathered by the second query (id.). Appeal 2010-004522 Application 11/044,747 5 Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Brunswig and Milby would have taught or suggested the limitations as recited in independent claim 1 and in independent claim 10? 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) obvious over Brunswig and Milby and Dutta Appellants assert that this rejection is in error for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 10. Thus, the issues raised with respect to claims 1 and 10 similarly apply to the rejection of claims 2, 7-9, and 14-16. ANALYSIS Claims 1-9 We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings and suggestions of Brunswig regarding claim 1 and adopt them as our own (Ans. 5, 6, 15, and 16). We further emphasize the following. Appellants argue Brunswig does not disclose the third query is based on any attributes gathered by the second query (Br. 12); however, we do not find this argument persuasive. The third query taught in Brunswig is indeed based on the attributes gathered by the second query as these attributes gathered by the second query will not be included in the third query (¶¶ [0049]-[0050]). Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Brunswig and Milby would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-9, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Brunswig and Milby and claims 2 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Brunswig, Milby, and Dutta. Appeal 2010-004522 Application 11/044,747 6 Claims 10-16 We agree with Appellants (Br. 12) that the Examiner has not shown Brunswig discloses “using the query results which correspond to the second query, forming a third query based on the attributes” as recited in claim 10. The Examiner finds paragraphs 0049-0050 of Brunswig disclose this limitation (Ans. 8, 17). However, although we agree with the Examiner that both the second and third query are formed in Brunswig, the Examiner has not shown, nor do we readily find, that Brunswig teaches or suggests that the third query is formed using query results which correspond to the second query. Therefore, the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Brunswig and Milby would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11-16, not separately argued. With respect to claims 14-16, the Examiner has not shown Dutta cures the deficiencies of Brunswig and Milby. Therefore, claims 14-16 stand with independent claim 10. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Brunswig and Milby and claims 14- 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Brunswig, Milby, and Dutta. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Brunswig and Milby is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 7-9 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Brunswig, Milby, and Dutta is affirmed. Appeal 2010-004522 Application 11/044,747 7 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Brunswig and Milby is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-16 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Brunswig, Milby, and Dutta 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) (2010). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ELD