Ex Parte Mohr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2014

12010137 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2014)

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