Ex Parte Pryce et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 12, 201411838590 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/838,590 08/14/2007 Alex Pryce OIC0207D1US 6992 60975 7590 03/13/2014 CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP 11401 CENTURY OAKS TERRACE BLDG. H, SUITE 250 AUSTIN, TX 78758 EXAMINER HOSSEINI, REZA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/13/2014 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 ALEX PRYCE, JEFFREY BOYD, and SCOTT KURINSKAS1 ____________________ Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, 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. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-23. Appellants have previously canceled claims 2 and 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Real Party in Interest is Oracle Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants’ “invention relates to data systems in general, and, in more particular, a mechanism for substituting tables such that two separate enterprise applications may access the same tables using a common database instance.” Spec. 1:20-22 (“Field of the Invention”). Exemplary Claims Claims 1, 4, 7, and 10, reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal (some paragraphing and emphases added to disputed limitations): 1. A method for sharing data across a legacy application system and a core application system, comprising: identifying a table in the legacy application system containing data similar to data contained in a set of related core application system tables, said legacy application table comprising a substituted table, wherein the set of related core application system tables comprise a base table and at least one child table; determining a table structure of each of the substituted table and the set of related core application system tables; defining business logic to remap columns in the set of related core application system tables to corresponding columns in the substituted table based on the table structure of each table; and 2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 8, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 8, 2011); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 8, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed Mar. 4, 2010); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Aug. 14, 2007). Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 3 performing core application system data operations via the business logic that access the remapped columns in the substituted table instead of the columns in the core application system table, wherein the legacy application system is configured to concurrently access the substituted table without requiring any changes to business logic that is used by the legacy application system, and wherein performing the core application system data operations comprises entering data corresponding to a new record, and in response thereto writing data pertaining to the new record to the substituted table and writing a portion of the same data to said at least one child table. 4. The method of claim 3, further comprising: generating a primary key for the substituted table using a primary key generation scheme corresponding to the legacy application system; and generating a primary key for said at least one child table using a primary key generation scheme corresponding to the core application system. 7. A method for sharing data across a legacy application system and a core application system, comprising: identifying a set of related tables in the legacy application system containing data similar to data contained in a set of related core application system tables, said legacy application table comprising a set of substituted tables, wherein the set of substituted tables comprise a base table and at least one child table; Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 4 determining a table structure of each of the set of substituted tables and the set of related core application system tables; defining business logic to remap columns in the set of related core application system tables to corresponding columns in the set of substituted tables based on the table structure of each table; and performing core application system data operations via the business logic that access the remapped columns in the set of substituted tables instead of the columns in the set of related core application system tables, wherein the legacy application system is enabled to concurrently access the set of substituted tables without requiring any changes to business logic that is used by the legacy application system, and wherein performing the core application system data operations comprises entering data corresponding to a new record, and in response thereto: writing a first portion of data pertaining to the new record to the base table; writing a second portion of data pertaining to the new record to said at least one child table. 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: remapping columns in a core application system table to corresponding columns in said legacy application system table; and performing core application system data operations that access the columns in the substituted table in place of the columns in the core application system table that are remapped. Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 5 Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Bergen US 5,564,113 Oct. 8, 1996 Burroughs US 5,956,725 Sep. 21, 1999 Kabra US 2003/0014396 A1 Jan. 16, 2003 Rejections on Appeal3 R1. Claims 1, 3-6, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Burroughs. Ans. 4. R2. Claims 7, 9-16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Burroughs and Bergen. Ans. 9. R3. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Burroughs, Bergen, and Kabra. Ans. 17. R4. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Burroughs and Kabra. Ans. 18. CLAIM GROUPINGS Based upon Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9-19), we select the following claims as being representative of the indicated claim groups. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). 3 Appellants only appeal rejections R1 and R2, indicated above. App. Br. 8. Appellants do not present any arguments against rejections R3 and R4. Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 6 G1. Claim 1 is representative of claims 3, 5, 6, 20, and 23, which stand or fall with independent claim 1. Appellants did not separately argue claims 17, 21, and 22 with particularity, so they likewise fall with claim 1. G2. Claim 4 stands or falls alone. G3. Claim 7 is representative of claims 9, 11-15, 18, and 19, which stand or fall with independent claim 7. G4. Claim 10 is representative of claim 16, which stands or falls with dependent claim 10. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS We only consider those arguments actually made by Appellants in reaching this decision, and we do not consider arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so that any such arguments are deemed to be waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to claims 1, 3- 7, and 9-23, and we 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 by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Arguments. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 for emphasis as follows. 1. Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 20, and 23 Appellants argue (App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 9-15) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 7 Burroughs is in error. These contentions present us with the following issues: Issue 1 Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art discloses the following limitations in claim 1? (a) “entering data corresponding to a new record, and in response thereto writing data pertaining to the new record to the substituted table and writing a portion of the same data to said at least one child table”; and (b) “defining business logic to remap columns in the set of related core application system tables to corresponding columns in the substituted table based on the table structure of each table.” Analysis Issue 1(a) Appellants contend the portions of Burroughs cited by the Examiner (FOA 5-6 (citing Burroughs col. 10, ll. 29-51; col. 13, ll. 1-34 (e.g., sidetable))) only disclose storing a new employee entity on the relational side of Burroughs’s system, and does not disclose also storing a portion of the entity data in a table on the object-oriented application program side of the system. App. Br. 10. As a consequence, Appellants contend Burroughs fails to disclose the limitation in claim 1 of “entering data corresponding to a new record to both a table of a legacy application system and to a table of a core application system.” Id. Appellants further assert Burroughs discloses relational data store 36 as the only location to store data, and “Burroughs has explicitly stated it is only interested in dealing with the problems of Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 8 interfacing an object-oriented application program with a relational database, with the complete absence of object-oriented storage.” App. Br. 11 (citing Burroughs col. 3, ll. 22-26; col. 5, ll. 37-41). In response, the Examiner notes Appellants’ argument that “Burroughs fail[s] to teach entering data corresponding to a new record to both a table of a legacy application system and to a table of a core application system” (App. Br. 10) does not precisely match with the disputed language of claim 1, which recites, “entering data corresponding to a new record, and in response thereto writing data pertaining to the new record to the substituted table and writing a portion of the same data to said at least one child table.” The Examiner further observes Burroughs discloses parent/child tables of the system in Figures 8B and 9B and also discloses, “[s]chema map tool 24 may request that the user enter the table definition through [a] Graphical User interface (GUI), including the table name and column names.” See Ans. 20-21 (quoting Burroughs col. 10, ll. 29-51). We find Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, and we therefore agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 20- 23) that Burroughs discloses the “entering data” limitation in dispute. In addition, and in further support of the Examiner’s findings regarding the anticipation of claim 1 by Burroughs, we further note Burroughs generally discloses, inter alia, “the present invention relates to a method . . . for mapping between the schema of an object-oriented application program and the schema of legacy or preexisting relational database tables in which the mapping includes a relationship between a handle of an object and a . . . key of a table.” Burroughs col. 1, ll. 17-22. Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 9 In the Reply, Appellants contend: While Burroughs may purportedly write to the parent, child, or side table (the purported substitute legacy table), these tables are clearly shown in Figures 8B and 9B as tables of the relational side of Burroughs’ system (whereas Figures 8A and 9A illustrate the object-oriented schema side of Burroughs’ system). Burrough’s purported writing to a child table of the relational side of Burroughs system fails to disclose the claimed act of writing data pertaining to a new record to a child table of a core application system. Reply Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). Again, we find Appellants’ arguments pertaining to “object-oriented schema side” and “relational side” are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Appellants appear to be arguing we should read limitations from the Specification into claim 1, which we note only requires, in pertinent part, “writing data pertaining to the new record to the substituted table and writing a portion of the same data to said at least one child table.” While we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Appellants also argue in the Reply, “the cited sections of Burroughs teach away from using such object-oriented databases in Burroughs’ system, and instead only disclose a system with a relational database.” Reply Br. 13. We disagree, as our reviewing court held in Celeritas, “[a] reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. . . . [T]he question whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.” Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 10 We therefore agree with the Examiner’s findings that Burroughs anticipates claim 1. Issue 1(b) Appellants contend, “Burroughs fail[s] to disclose storage tables on the object-oriented application program side . . . [and] also fail[s] to teach the claimed act of defining business logic to remap columns in the set of related core application system tables to corresponding columns in the substituted table.” App. Br. 12. Appellants further contend, “mapping a handle to a column of a database is not equivalent to mapping the columns of a set of core application system tables to a substituted (legacy) table . . . [so that] data pertaining to a new record can be written to at least one child table.” Id. Appellants argue the portions of Burroughs cited by the Examiner “fail to disclose to disclose any storage tables on the object- oriented program side of Burroughs’ system to which data can be written.” Id. In response, the Examiner finds (Ans. 5, 23), and we agree, Burroughs teaches the limitation in dispute in Figures 8A and 8B and the related disclosure. For example, Figure 8A maps columns in the set of related core application system tables such as entity 136 and address entity 144 of Figure 8A to corresponding columns in substituted table (152 of Figure 8B) based on the table structure of each table. See Burroughs col. 13, ll. 1-34; Fig. 4 (sidetable 92); Figs. 8A, 8B; col. 17, l. 59 to col. 18, l. 22. That is, Figures 8A and 8B diagram an object and database table illustrating a method in which fields of an embedded key object are mapped to columns of sidetable Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 11 92 joined to the table via a foreign key relationship. Burroughs col. 5, ll. 17-20. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments cited above and find the recitation of “business logic to remap columns in the set of related core application system tables to corresponding columns in the substituted table based on the table structure of each table” reads on the disclosure of Burroughs cited above. Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. As Appellants have not provided separate arguments with respect to the other claims of group G1, which stand or fall with independent claim 1, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 17 In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed to the unpatentability rejection of claim 17 under § 103 over the combination of Burroughs, Bergen, and Kabra, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of these claims as it falls with independent claim 1. Arguments not made are considered waived. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, section 1.192(c)(7) [(now section 41.37(c)(1)(vii))] imposes no burden on the Board to consider the merits of that ground of rejection . . . . [T]he Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.”). Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 12 § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 21 and 22 In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed to the unpatentability rejection of claims 21 and 22 under § 103, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of these claims, as they fall with their respective independent claim 20. Arguments not made are considered waived. See Hyatt, 551 F.3d at 1314. 2. Anticipation Rejection of Claim 4 Issue 2 Appellants argue (App. Br. 13-14) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Burroughs is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art discloses the limitations of “generating a primary key for the substituted table using a primary key generation scheme corresponding to the legacy application system” and “generating a primary key for said at least one child table using a primary key generation scheme corresponding to the core application system,” as recited in claim 4? Analysis Appellants contend, “the cited sections of Burroughs fail to teach any sort of primary key generation scheme corresponding to either the legacy application system or core application system, as claimed.” App. Br. 13. Appellants further contend the cited sections of Burroughs show the sidetable defines a column, such as “Street” as a primary key, but fails to disclose “the primary key is generated using a primary key generation Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 13 scheme corresponding to the relational database (the purported legacy application system).” Id. (citing Burroughs col. 17, ll. 66-67). In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, “Burroughs teaches defining a primary key for the sidetable and core application system on ‘street of sidetable’ and ‘AddrCode.’” Ans. 24 (citing Burroughs col 17, ll. 66-67; Fig. 8B (sidetable 152)). In support of the Examiner’s findings, we further note Burroughs discloses: A sidetable 152 has a column “Street” defined as a primary key and has a column “AddrCode” defined as a foreign key into the “AddrCode” column of table 146, which is in turn defined as a foreign key into the “AddrCode” column of table 148. Sidetable 152 may be added and maintained by providing a suitable API, as described above with respect to FIG. 4. Burroughs col. 17, l. 66 to col. 18, l. 17. Appellants’ arguments that “the cited sections of Burroughs fail to disclose that the primary key is generated using a primary key generation scheme corresponding to the relational database (the purported legacy application system)” (App. Br. 13) and “the cited sections fail to disclose generating a key using a primary key generation scheme corresponding to the object-oriented application system (the purported core application system)” (App. Br. 14) are not commensurate with the scope of claim 4. As quoted above, claim 4 makes no mention of “relational database” or “object-oriented application system,” and as such Appellants are arguing limitations not present in claim 4. The Examiner presents specific findings to rebut Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 25), which we adopt as our own and incorporate herein by reference. We further note the limitations in dispute in claim 4 merely appear to recite an intended use, being of the form “generating a primary key Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 14 for . . . .” Even assuming we were to give weight to the intended use recited in claim 4, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner as cited above. Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claim 4. 3. Unpatentability Rejection of Claims 7, 9, 11-15, 18, and 19 Issue 3 Appellants argue (App. Br. 15-18; Reply Br. 17-20) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Burroughs and Bergen is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests the limitations relating to entering data corresponding to a new record to a base table and child table of a set of legacy application system tables, and defining business logic to remap columns in the set of related core application system tables to corresponding columns in a set of substituted tables, as required by claim 7? Analysis Appellants contend the “combination of references still fails to disclose the claimed act of entering data corresponding to a new record to a base table and at least one child table.” App. Br. 16. Appellants further contend, “[i]t is unclear how Bergen’s tables, which contain information Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 15 very different from Burroughs’ legacy tables, could be combined with Burroughs’ sidetable in a way that would purportedly teach the claimed set of substituted tables.” Id. In addition, Appellants contend, “the cited sections of Burroughs fail to teach the claimed act of defining business logic to remap columns in the set of related core application system tables to corresponding columns in the set of substituted tables” and “Bergen is not cognizant of any reason why columns of Bergen’s tables should be mapped to columns of any other table.” App. Br. 17. In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, similar to claim 1, Burroughs teaches business logic used to map columns in the related core application system tables to corresponding columns in a set of substituted tables. Ans. 27 (citing Burroughs Fig. 8A (reference nos. 136 & 144); Fig. 8B (sidetable 152); col. 17, l. 59 to col. 18, l. 22; col. 13, ll. 1-34). The Examiner states both Burroughs and Bergen teach or suggest the limitation in claim 7 of “entering data corresponding to a new record, and in response thereto: writing a first portion of data pertaining to the new record to the base table; writing a second portion of data pertaining to the new record to said at least one child table.” Ans. 27-28. The Examiner specifically cites to Bergen at column 6, lines 7-33, column 7, lines 50-62, column 8, lines 38-47, and Figures 1, 3, and 4 as teaching or suggesting this disputed limitation. Ans. 28. We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of Bergen’s teachings and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Id. Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 16 Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 7. As Appellants have not provided separate arguments with respect to the remaining claims of group G3, which stand or fall with independent claim 7, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 4. Unpatentability Rejection of Claims 10 and 16 Issue 4 Appellants argue (App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 20-21) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Burroughs and Bergen is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests the limitation of “remapping columns in a core application system table to corresponding columns in said legacy application system table,” as recited in claim 10? Analysis Appellants contend the cited portions of Bergen only teach referencing tables using a key value and fail to disclose accessing columns of tables in place of columns of any other table. App. Br. 18 (citing Bergen col. 7, ll. 50-62). Appellants further contend Burroughs fails to disclose any storage tables on the object-oriented application program side of Burroughs’s system, and therefore Bergen’s tables cannot be relied upon to teach the missing storage table on the object-oriented application program side of Burroughs’s system because such tables do not exist in Burroughs. Id. Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 17 The Examiner finds, and we agree, the “only part of [the] claim language of claim 10 which is taught by Bergen is ‘performing core application system data operations that access the columns in the substituted table in place of the columns in the core application system table that are remapped’, [and] Bergen teaches this limitation.” Ans. 33 (citing Bergen col. 7, ll. 50-62). The Examiner further finds Bergen’s “tables provide a mapping matrix between database objects of a plurality of RDBMSs,” thus meeting the claim limitation in dispute. Id. (citing Bergen Fig. 3 (translation table 30); Fig. 4 (implication table 31); Fig. 5 (composition table 32), which are stored in computer memory and accessed via computer). With respect to Burroughs’s teachings relevant to claim 10, the Examiner finds (Ans. 33), and we agree, Appellants’ argument that “the cited sections of Burroughs fail to disclose any storage tables on the object- oriented application program side of Burroughs’ system” (App. Br. 18) is not persuasive. We find the argument is unpersuasive because Appellants’ arguments are not directed to the actual claim limitation and therefore not commensurate with the scope of claim 10, which does not distinguish between an object-oriented application program side and any other side, e.g., a “relational side.” Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Burroughs and Bergen teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 10. Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art or in the Examiner’s legal Appeal 2011-007850 Application 11/838,590 18 conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 10. As Appellants have not provided separate arguments with respect to remaining claim 16 of group G4, which stands or fall with dependent claim 10, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err with respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Burroughs, and we sustain the rejection. (2) The Examiner did not err with respect to the various unpatentability rejections of claims 7, 9-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 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, 3-7, and 9-23. 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 bab Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation