Ex Parte Tran et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201612491324 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation