Ex Parte Tran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

12491324 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

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.
12/491,324 06/25/2009 Quan Chi Tran Case 7368 5165
41669 7590 05/27/2016
BABCOCK & WILCOX POWER GENERATION GROUP, INC.
PATENT DEPARTMENT
20 SOUTH VAN BUREN AVENUE
BARBERTON, OH 44203
EXAMINER
HASAN, SYED HAROON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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 QUAN CHI TRAN and XIAODA GONG

___________

Appeal 2014-005232
Application 12/491,324
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2014-005232
Application 12/491,324

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1–8, 10–18, and 20–22. Claims 9 and 19 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to accessing data from a database,
including receiving a user selection of a database object, dynamically
generating and presenting to the user input fields for obtaining user input
associated with the selected database object, receiving user input associated
with the selected database object, and generating a database query utilizing
the received user input. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for accessing data from a database, the method
comprising:
receiving, at a computer via a network, information associated
with at least one database object;
retrieving, via the database, at least one database object from a
set thereof in response to the received information, the at least one
database object including at least one of a function, a call, a
procedure, or a view of data stored in the database;
receiving, at the computer via the network, a user selection of a
database object;
dynamically generating, by the computer, one or more input
fields for obtaining user input associated with the selected database
object, wherein the generated one or more input fields are displayed
to the user;
receiving, via the one or more generated input fields, user input
associated with the selected database object;
Appeal 2014-005232
Application 12/491,324

3
dynamically converting the received user input associated with
the selected database object into a syntax corresponding to the
database;
dynamically generating, by the computer, a database query
utilizing the dynamically converted user input in accordance with the
selected database object; and
querying the database utilizing the dynamically generated
database query and selected database object.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yuknewicz et al. (US 2005/0171934
A1, published Aug. 4, 2005) and Glaser et al. (US 2007/0016960 A1,
published Jan. 18, 2007).
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yuknewicz, Glaser, and Hussey (US 5,826,269, issued
Oct. 20, 1998).
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yuknewicz, Glaser, and Bayliss et al. (US 2004/0098359
A1, published May 20, 2004).
Claims 8, 18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yuknewicz, Glaser, and Narasimhan et al. (US
2002/0161857 A1, published Oct. 31, 2002).

§ 103 Rejection—Yuknewicz and Glaser
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9–10; see also
Reply Br. 4–5) that the Examiner has not shown that the combination of
Yuknewicz and Glaser would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the limitation “dynamically generating, by the computer, one
Appeal 2014-005232
Application 12/491,324

4
or more input fields for obtaining user input associated with the selected
database object, wherein the generated one or more input fields are
displayed to the user.”
The Examiner found that the selection of an existing parameterized
query of Yuknewicz corresponds to the limitation “dynamically generating,
by the computer, one or more input fields for obtaining user input associated
with the selected database object, wherein the generated one or more input
fields are displayed to the user.” (Ans. 4, 13–14; see also Final Act. 4.) We
do not agree.
Yuknewicz relates to “generating a parameterized query to retrieve
selected data from a data source.” (¶ 2.) Yuknewicz explains that an
interface is provided that “enable[s] the user to choose whether to define a
new parameterized query or to select an existing parameterized query.”
(¶ 10.) Figure 5 of Yuknewicz illustrates an exemplary parameterized query
builder dialog box 500 (¶ 21), which includes dataset drop down menu 510
(¶ 48) and “radio buttons 522 and 532, which enable the user to choose
whether to define a new parameterized query or to select an existing
parameterized query” (¶ 49). Here, the Examiner emphasizes that the
rejection is based only on the latter option, i.e., select an existing
parameterizing query. (Ans. 13–14.) Thus, our analysis shall look for error
in the Examiner’s interpretation of this specific option.1

1 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
another portion from paragraph 49 of Yuknewicz, which explains that
“[d]ialog box 500 also includes radio buttons 522 and 532, which enables
the user to choose whether to define a new parameterized query” would
have rendered obvious the argued limitation of independent claim 1
(emphasis added). In particular, whether enabling the user of Yuknewicz to
Appeal 2014-005232
Application 12/491,324

5
Although the Examiner cited the selection of the existing
parameterized query of Yuknewicz, the Examiner has provided insufficient
evidence to support a finding that Yuknewicz teaches or suggests (or
otherwise would render obvious with the other limitations) the limitation
“dynamically generating, by the computer, one or more input fields for
obtaining user input associated with the selected database object, wherein
the generated one or more input fields are displayed to the user” (Ans. 4, 13–
14), particularly when the existing parameterized query of Yuknewicz has
already been defined (¶ 49). On this record, we do not agree with the
Examiner that Yuknewicz teaches the limitation “dynamically generating, by
the computer, one or more input fields for obtaining user input associated
with the selected database object, wherein the generated one or more input
fields are displayed to the user.” Instead, the Examiner has merely
highlighted a user’s selection of an existing query, not the dynamic
generation of one or more input fields for obtaining user input.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that
“Yuknewicz does not provide for the selection of a database object, but
instead requires the user to . . . select a preexisting query, not a database
object” (App. Br. 10) and that the “distinction with respect to Yuknewicz,
i.e., if it is an existing query, then it cannot be considered to teach the
‘dynamic generation’ recited in the instant claims” (Reply Br. 4).
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 4, 5, 7, and 10 depend from independent

choose whether to define a new parameterized query would inherently result
in the generation of an input field (see id.) and thus, teaches the claimed
limitation “dynamically generating, by the computer, one or more input
fields.”
Appeal 2014-005232
Application 12/491,324

6
claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.
Independent claim 11 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 11, as well as dependent claims 14, 15, 17, and 20, for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

§ 103 Rejection—Yuknewicz, Glaser, and Hussey
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 depend from independent claims 1 and 11.
Hussey was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of
claims 2, 3, 12, and 13. (Ans. 8–9.) However, the Examiner’s application of
Hussey does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Yuknewicz and Glaser.

§ 103 Rejection—Yuknewicz, Glaser, and Bayliss
Claims 6 and 16 depend from independent claims 1 and 11. Bayliss
was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 6
and 16. (Ans. 9–10.) However, the Examiner’s application of Bayliss does
not cure the above noted deficiencies of Yuknewicz and Glaser.

§ 103 Rejection—Yuknewicz, Glaser, and Narasimhan
Claims 8, 18, 21, and 22 depend from independent claims 1 and 11.
Narasimhan was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features
of claims 8, 18, 21, and 22. (Ans. 11–13.) However, the Examiner’s
application of Narasimhan does not cure the above noted deficiencies of
Yuknewicz and Glaser.
Appeal 2014-005232
Application 12/491,324

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8, 10–18, and 20–22 is
reversed.

REVERSED