Ex Parte Mohr et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 16, 201412010137 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL MOHR and DANIEL PIETRARU ____________________ Appeal 2012-004851 Application 12/010,137 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, HUNG H. BUI, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 The Real Party in Interest is Alcatel Lucent. 2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed August 2, 2011 (“Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed November 9, 2011 (“Ans.”); and original Specification filed January 22, 2008 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-004851 Application 12/010,137 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Relational databases include a number of tables each with rows and columns to store data, and fields to link tables together to reduce redundancy while providing the ability to execute complex queries. Spec. ¶ 2. However, when a user submits an aggregate query, the database management system (DBMS) must access the table, gather data from the table, combine data according to a user’s query, and display the results to the user, all of which can result in duplication of I/O operations (unnecessary I/O reads) and degrade system performance. Id. at ¶ 3. Appellants’ invention seeks to perform more efficient aggregate calculations in relational databases without redundant I/O operations, while preserving reporting speeds. Id. According to Appellants, a database is arranged such that: (1) each table in the database is associated with a counter type, and (2) a label is associated with each table to indicate the counter type shared by all rows in the table. Because only one type of counter is contained within each table, the database does not need to store the type of counter in each row. Id. at ¶ 8. Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 8, 15, and 23 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1 and 23 are illustrative of Appellants’ invention and are reproduced below: 1. A tangible and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded with a database structure, the database structure comprising: a plurality of tables, each table configured to store a respective data set comprising at least one row of data and each table associated with a respective unique counter type of a plurality of unique counter types, Appeal 2012-004851 Application 12/010,137 3 wherein the respective unique counter type substitutes for an entry shared by each row of data in the respective data set, and wherein a database system queries at least one of the plurality of tables to produce a query result. 23. A computer-implemented method of amalgamating entries in a database, the method comprising: accessing a plurality of tables in the database, each table associated with a respective unique counter type of a plurality of unique counter types; retrieving at least one row from each of the plurality of tables; adding, to the at least one row from each of the plurality of tables, a label corresponding to the respective unique counter type of the plurality of unique counter types; and combining the at least one row from each of the plurality of tables to form an amalgamated table Br. 15, 20 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). Evidence Considered Ishizaka US 7,165,214 B2 January 16, 2007 Sauermann US 7,124,148 B2 October 17, 2006 Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishizaka and Sauermann. Ans. 5–7. Issues on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishizaka and Sauermann. In particular, the appeal turns on: (1) whether the combination of Ishizaka and Sauermann Appeal 2012-004851 Application 12/010,137 4 teaches or suggests “wherein the respective unique counter type substitutes for an entry shared by each row of data in the respective data set” and “wherein a database system queries at least one of the plurality of tables to produce a query result” as recited in Appellants’ independent claims 1, 8, and 15; and (2) whether the combination of Ishizaka and Sauermann teaches or suggests “adding, to the at least one row from each of the plurality of tables, a label corresponding to the respective unique counter type of the plurality of unique counter types” as recited in Appellants’ independent claim 23. Br. 10–13. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the Examiner finds Ishizaka discloses a computer-readable storage medium encoded with a database structure comprising a plurality of tables, each table configured to store a respective data set comprising at least one row of data and each table associated with a respective unique counter type of a plurality of unique counter types. Ans. 5 (citing Ishizaka 9:3–13 and Figs. 8–10). According to the Examiner, Appellants’ claimed “counter type” corresponds to any attribute of each table, shown in Figs. 8–10. Id. at 5, 8. The Examiner acknowledges Ishizaka is not as detailed with respect to “the respective unique counter type substitutes for an entry shared by each row of data in the respective data set,” but cites Sauermann for disclosing the same as well as a database system queries at least one of the tables to produce a query result. Id. at 6 (citing Sauermann 5:55–60, 6:4–67 and Figs. 4–5). Based on these factual findings, the Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to incorporate Sauermann’s teachings into the Ishizaka system. A skilled Appeal 2012-004851 Application 12/010,137 5 artisan would have been motivated to combine in order to categorize attributes, which will provide a more user-friendly environment.” Id. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding Ishizaka or the Examiner’s rationale for combining Ishizaka and Sauermann. Instead, Appellants simply dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding Sauermann. In particular, Appellants argue Sauermann does not disclose “wherein the respective unique counter type substitutes for an entry shared by each row of data in the respective data set” and “wherein a database system queries at least one of the plurality of tables to produce a query result” as recited in Appellants’ independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Br. 10–12. According to Appellants, Fig. 5 of Sauermann only shows a tabbed user display that categorizes and groups database records based on shared attributes, and the tables, shown in Fig. 5 of Sauermann, are conventional database structure. Sauermann does not teach the tabbed user display is used to generate a query result; nor the tabbed user display shown in Fig. 5 disclose a counter type that substitutes for an entry shared by each row of data in the respective data set. Id. at 11–12. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. At the outset, we note that Appellants have broadly defined a “counter type” as “a value of a particular attribute or counter that classifies or describes the set of data.” Spec. ¶ 26. The term “counter” is defined as “an attribute that categorizes a set of data according to one or more counter types.” Id. Based on Appellants’ broad definition of the term “counter type,” we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ claimed “counter type” can correspond to any attribute of each table, including, for example: customer name attribute, address attribute, telephone number attribute, and email ID attribute, as App App show “cou Tabl 60; c Fig resu eal 2012-0 lication 12 n in Figs. nter type” e 3, and co ol. 6, ll. 3– Fig. 5 of . 5 of Saue lts from T t 04851 /010,137 8–10 of Is can also c mbined ta 65; Fig. 5 Sauerman rmann is able 1, Tab o a query hizaka. A orrespond ble of Sau . n is repro a diagram le 2, and and displa 6 ns. 5, 8. L to any attr ermann. S duced with illustrating Table 3 in ying the se ikewise, A ibute of T ee Sauerm additiona a process a relationa arch resul ppellants able 1, Ta ann, col. l marking of gather l database ts 550. ’ claimed ble 2, 5, ll. 55– s below. ing search according Appeal 2012-004851 Application 12/010,137 7 Appellants’ claimed “counter type” can also correspond to any attribute of Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, and combined table 540 of Sauermann (referred to in Sauermann as “cache table 540”), including, for example: color attribute 514, 524, price attribute 515, 525, 535, description attribute 547, manufacturer attribute 548, and maker attribute 549. As shown in Fig. 5 of Sauermann, the database management system searches Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 in a relational database according to query criteria, and identifies attributes shared in common among all the data rows from the database containing Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 that meet the query criteria and saves the search results in combined table 540, as correctly found by the Examiner. Ans. 9 (citing Sauermann, col. 5, ll. 55– 60; col. 6, ll. 5–25). Any of these attributes (Appellants’ claimed “counter type”) can be selected, via a search query, and may substitute for an entry [in combined table 540] shared by each row of data in the tables. Id. at 9–10 (citing Sauermann, col. 4, ll. 47–42; col. 5, ll. 45–54; and col. 7, ll. 36–49). Based on these disclosures, we find Sauermann teaches “wherein the respective unique counter type substitutes for an entry shared by each row of data in the respective data set” and “wherein a database system queries at least one of the plurality of tables to produce a query result” as recited in Appellants’ independent claims 1, 8, and 15. For the reasons set forth above, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s position and, as such, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of Appellants’ independent claims 1, 8, and 15. With respect to independent claim 23, Appellants contend the combination of Sauermann does not disclose “adding, to the at least one row from each of the plurality of tables, a label corresponding to the respective Appeal 2012-004851 Application 12/010,137 8 unique counter type of the plurality of unique counter types.” Br. 12–13. In particular, Appellants argue that a “telephone number” shown in Figs. 12–13 of Ishizaka is merely a standard table entry, and is not Appellants’ claimed “counter type,” and likewise, the cited portions of Sauermann generally disclose an attribute value to an attribute list, but that attribute value is neither the claimed “counter type” nor added to a row of a table. Id. We disagree. Again, based on Appellants’ broad definition of the term “counter type,” we agree with the Examiner that the claimed “counter type” can be interpreted to encompass the “telephone number” attribute of Ishizaka. We find the Examiner’s reasoning articulated in the Answer (Ans. 10) persuasive and adopt the same as our own. With respect to dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, 16–22, and 24–25, Appellants present no separate patentability arguments. Br. 13. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–7, 9–14, 16–22, and 24–25. When the patentability of dependent claims is not argued separately, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983). CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2012-004851 Application 12/010,137 9 DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–25. 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 cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation