Ex Parte Hunt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 2016

13028022 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/028,022 02/15/2011 Herbert Dennis Hunt 43520 7590 04/27/2016 STRATEGIC PATENTS P,C P.O. BOX 920629 NEEDHAM, MA 02492 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. IRIC-0052-P02 7944 EXAMINER HOANG,SONT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/27/2016 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): patents@stratpat.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HERBERT DENNIS HUNT, JOHN RANDALL WEST, MARSHALL ASHBY GIBBS JR., BRADLEY MICHAEL GRIGLIONE, GREGORY DAVID NEIL HUDSON, ANDREA BASILICO, ARVID C. JOHNSON, CHERYL G. BERGEON, CRAIG JOSEPH CHAPA, ALBERTO AGOSTINELLI, JAY ALAN YUSKO, TREVOR MASON, and TING LIU Appeal2014-007411 Application 13/028,022 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1--4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Information Resources Inc. Br. 2. Appeal2014-007411 Application 13/028,022 Invention The claims are directed to processing a database query by dynamically altering database fields to conform to a desired bit size. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: using a computer, identifying a database comprising a field; identifying a query relating to the field; prior to processing the query, dynamically altering the field to conform to a desired bit size; processing the query; and returning results of the query. Applied Prior Art The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Lapir et al. Back et al. US 2006/0212431 Al Sept. 21, 2006 US 7,620,526 B2 Nov. 17, 2009 Rejections Claims 1--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Back and Lapir. Final Act. 4---6. 2 Appeal2014-007411 Application 13/028,022 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own: the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2---6 (mailed Mar. 25, 2013)) and the findings and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 4---6 (mailed Apr. 23, 2014)). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Appellants contend the combination of Back and Lapir is improper because the combination "[r]esults in an [i]noperable [d]evice." Br. 15-16. Specifically, Appellants argue that Back processes database queries by "convert[ing] structured data (e.g., database fields or linked memory structure) into an intermediate flat contiguous memory structure," but using Lapir' s folding technique to convert Back's structured data would result in "a loss of information that ... would render the conversion process of Back inoperable." Id. at 12, 16. The test for obviousness, however, is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of a primary reference. "Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Back teaches a method of querying a database field which "dynamically alter[s] the field to conform to a condition" before processing the query. Ans. 4 (citing Back 10:58---60); Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Lapir teaches 3 Appeal2014-007411 Application 13/028,022 dynamically altering database fields to conform to a desired bit size before processing queries. Ans. 5 (citing Lapir i-fi-174--75); Final Act. 5 (citing Lapir i-fi-161---63)). The Examiner correctly concludes, therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to alter Back's database field to conform to a desired bit size, as taught or suggested by Lapir. See Final Act. 5. Although Appellants argue that using Lapir's folding technique to resize Back's fields results in an inoperable device because Lapir's folding technique results in lost information (Br. 15-16), we are not persuaded because Back teaches altering a database field to conform to a data structure (Back 10:58---60) and Lapir teaches using bit size as a conforming data structure for database fields (Lapir i-fi-161---63, 74--75). Therefore, the combination of Back and Lapir would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a method which alters a database field to conform to a desired bit size (see Final Act. 5). For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred by improperly combining Back and Lapir. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4. 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) (2009). AFFIRMED 4