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.
13/853,438 03/29/2013 Sameer Tiwari EMCCP477 3804
57255 7590 08/21/2019
VAN PELT, YI & JAMES LLP AND
EMC IP Holding Company LLC
10050 N. FOOTHILL BLVD.
SUITE 200
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
EXAMINER
PHAM, HUNG Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptocorrespondence@ip-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte SAMEER TIWARI and MILIND ARUN BHANDARKAR1
____________
Appeal 2018-008783
Application 13/853,438
Technology Center 2100
____________
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3–7, and 9–28, which are all the pending claims. See Final Act. 1;
App. Br. 12–16 (Claims App’x). Appellants have canceled claims 2 and 8.
App. Br. 12–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies EMC IP Holding Company LLC as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008783
Application 13/853,438
2
Introduction
Appellants describe the invention as relating “to database metastores,
and more particularly to systems and methods for a unified catalog service
for managing database metadata for multiple systems.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Disclosed embodiments employ a “shared catalog service” to enable both
structured data sources (e.g., a relational database system) and unstructured
data sources (e.g., a file system) to access and retrieve schemas for
processing a query. Id. ¶¶ 13–14, 16, 18.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal:
1. A system for managing metadata, the system
comprising:
a network resource configured to store database metadata
and to provide a shared catalog service to one or more data
sources, wherein the shared catalog manages metadata for the
one or more data sources, and wherein the one or more data
sources include at least one data source comprising unstructured
data and at least one data source comprising structured data;
a first data source in communication with the network
resource to access the shared catalog service, wherein the first
data source comprises a memory storing unstructured data; and
a second data source in communication with the network
resource to access the shared catalog service, wherein the second
data source comprises memory storing structured data,
wherein in the event that a query is submitted to the
system, the system determines that the query requires
information from one or more of the first data source and the
second data source, the first data source is configured to retrieve
a first database schema corresponding to the first data source
from the network resource via the shared catalog service and the
first database schema is applied to the unstructured data
comprised in the first data source, and the second data source is
configured to retrieve a second database schema corresponding
to the second data source from the network resource via the
Appeal 2018-008783
Application 13/853,438
3
shared catalog service and the second database schema is applied
to the structured data comprised in the second data source, and
wherein a response to the query is generated using the
unstructured data of the first data source and the structured data
of the second data source.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App’x).
Rejections & References
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–7, 9–12, 14–22, and 22–28
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dettinger et al. (US
2003/0208458 A1, published Nov. 6, 2003) (“Dettinger”). Final Act. 6–13;
Ans. 3–10.
2. The Examiner rejected claim 13 under pre-AIA U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dettinger and Abadi et al. (US 2011/0302583 A1,
published Dec. 8. 2011) (“Abadi”). Final Act. 14.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 23 under pre-AIA U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dettinger and Krinsky et al. (US 2007/0203893 A1,
published Aug. 30, 2007) (“Krinsky”). Id.
ANALYSIS
A. The § 102(b) rejections
The Examiner finds that Dettinger’s disclosure of generating query
results from XML data in a first remote data source and from a relational
database data in a second remote database constitutes “a response to the
query is generated using the unstructured data of the first data source and the
structured data of the second data source,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 9
(citing Dettinger, Fig. 5, ¶ 73), see also id. at 7–8 (citing Dettinger, Figs. 1,
2A–B, 4, 7, 8 ¶¶ 42, 44, 47, 49, 56, 70, 71). In particular, the Examiner
Appeal 2018-008783
Application 13/853,438
4
maps “the unstructured data of the first data source” to the disclosure of
XML data, which is illustrated in Dettinger Figures 2A, 5, and 8. Final
Act. 7; see also Ans. 4–5. The Examiner finds the combined responses to
sub-queries 5161,2 as illustrated in Figure 5 of Dettinger disclose “a response
to the query is generated using the unstructured data of the first data source
and the structured data of the second data source,” as also recited in claim 1.
Ans. 7–8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in finding the queries in
Dettinger (i.e., the “query using relational data access 5141, query using
hierarchical [XML] data access 5142, query using procedural data access
5143, and query using other data access method 514N” illustrated in its
Figure 5) constitute a disclosure of queries of “both unstructured data of the
first data source and the structured data of the second data source.” Reply
Br. 3. Appellants’ argument is persuasive.
Anticipation is a strict standard that requires finding each and every
element as set forth in the claim, either expressly or inherently, in a single
prior art reference, arranged as required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
v. Union Oil. Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Additionally,
to anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose more than “multiple, distinct
teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed
invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed.
Cir. 2008); see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (“[T]he
[prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed
[invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any
need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly
related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.”).
Appeal 2018-008783
Application 13/853,438
5
Here, the Examiner errs in finding Dettinger’s disclosure of querying
data from XML files constitutes disclosure of “the unstructured data
comprised in the first data source,” as recited. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 4–5
(both identifying XML Data in element 2141 for the unstructured data).
Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, XML is a formatting language for
documents that contain structured information. See, e.g, Norman Walsh, A
Technical Introduction to XML (1998) (available at www.xml.com/pub/a/98/
10/guide0.html (last accessed August 1, 2019)) (“What is XML? XML is a
markup language for documents containing structured information. . . . A
markup language is a mechanism to identify structures in a document.”).
We further note claim 1 requires that “the first data source is configured to
retrieve a first database schema corresponding to the first data source from
the network resource via the shared catalog service.” We discern no
disclosure in Dettinger that the data source corresponding to the XML query
5142 as illustrated in Dettinger Figure 5 is configured to retrieve a data
schema, as recited. We also note that, although Paragraph 49 of Dettinger
contemplates any “physical data representation” (“known or unknown”) for
a database, this paragraph also clarifies that the data itself (which may be
stored in any physical way) is structured with logical fields (that are mapped
to the physical representation).
Accordingly, Appellants persuade us the Examiner errs in finding the
cited portions of Dettinger, and specifically the disclosure of retrieving data
from an XML file, constitute a disclosure of “the first data source is
configured to retrieve a first database schema corresponding to the first data
source from the network resource via the shared catalog service and the first
database schema is applied to the unstructured data comprised in the first
Appeal 2018-008783
Application 13/853,438
6
data source,” as recited. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1. We likewise do not sustain the
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 16 and 17, which include
commensurate requirements for which the Examiner relies upon the same
findings (see App. Br. 13–15 (Claims App’x); Final Act. 6–9; Ans. 3–10).
Thus, we also decline to sustain the § 102(b) rejections of dependent claims
3–7, 9–12, 14, 15, 18–22, and 24–28.
B. The § 103(a) rejections
Claims 13 and 23 both depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1.
The Examiner makes no finding in the rejections of claims 13 and 23 that
cures the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Although the cited portions
of Krinsky describe the concept of mapping a query to an unstructured data
source (Krinsky, Fig. 5, ¶ 34), the Examiner has not provided sufficient
evidence or an adequate rationale as to how or why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined such teachings of Krinsky with the cited
teachings of Dettinger’s system to correct the deficiency discussed above for
claim 1. In other words, the Examiner has not explained how one of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified Dettinger’s system for
generating query responses using structured data of data sources to include
the use of an unstructured data source as taught by Krinsky. Nor has the
Examiner provided any alternative mapping of the claim and rationale to
show that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Krinsky’s system to include the teachings of Dettinger’s system to
arrive at the claimed invention. Instead, the Examiner’s rejection merely
reasons that “[i]t would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2018-008783
Application 13/853,438
7
at the time the invention was made to use a RDBMS command for XML
data in order to simplify criteria expressions.” Final Act. 14.
Therefore, on this record, we decline to sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 13 and 23.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1,
3–7, 9–12, 14–22, and 24–28.
We reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 13
and 23.
REVERSED
Notice of References Cited
Application/Control No.
Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent
Appeal No.
Examiner
Art Unit
Page 1 of 1
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY
Name
Classification
A US-
B US-
C US-
D US-
E US-
F US-
G US-
H US-
I US-
J US-
K US-
L US-
M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY
Country
Name
Classification
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
U
V
W
X
*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.
7/31/2019 A Technical Introduction to XML
https://www.xml.com/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html 1/31
A Technical Introduction to XML
October 3, 1998
Norman Walsh (/pub/au/44)
Author's Note: It is somewhat remarkable to think that this article, which appeared initially in the
Winter 1997 edition of the World Wide Web Journal was out of date by the time the nal XML Re
commendation (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml) was approved in February. And even as this
update brings the article back into line with the nal spec, a new series of recommendations are
under development. When nished, these will bring namespaces, linking, schemas, stylesheets,
and more to the table.
This introduction to XML presents the Extensible Markup Language at a reasonably technical
level for anyone interested in learning more about structured documents. In addition to covering
the XML 1.0 Specication, this article outlines related XML specications, which are evolving.
The article is organized in four main sections plus an appendix.
Start Here
What is XML? (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN58)
What's a Document? (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN63)
So XML is Just Like HTML? (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN66)
So XML Is Just Like SGML? (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN72)
Why XML? (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN78)
XML Development Goals (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN84)
How Is XML Dened? (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN123)
Understanding the Specs (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN145)
What Do XML Documents Look Like? (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html)
Elements (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN179)
Entity References (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#ENTREF)
Comments (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#COMMENTS)
Processing Instructions (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#PIS)
CDATA Sections (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#MARKEDSECT)
Document Type Declarations (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#DOCTYPEDEF)
Other Markup Issues (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN489)
Validity (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html)
7/31/2019 A Technical Introduction to XML
https://www.xml.com/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html 2/31
Well-formed Documents (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#WELLFORMED)
Valid Documents (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN560)
Pulling the Pieces Together (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html) (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html)
Simple Links (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN585)
Extended Links (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#XLINKS)
Extended Pointers (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#XPOINTER)
Extended Link Group (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#LINKGROUPS)
Understanding The Pieces (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN623)
Style and Substance (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN636)
Conclusion (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#AEN649)
Appendix:
Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF) (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#EBNF)
Revision History (/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html#revisionhist)
What is XML?
XML is a markup language for documents containing structured information.
Structured information contains both content (words, pictures, etc.) and some indication of what
role that content plays (for example, content in a section heading has a different meaning from
content in a footnote, which means something different than content in a gure caption or
content in a database table, etc.). Almost all documents have some structure.
A markup language is a mechanism to identify structures in a document. The XML specication
denes a standard way to add markup to documents.
What's a Document?
The number of applications currently being developed that are based on, or make use of, XML
documents is truly amazing (particularly when you consider that XML is not yet a year old)! For
our purposes, the word "document" refers not only to traditional documents, like this one, but
also to the myriad of other XML "data formats". These include vector graphics, e-commerce
transactions, mathematical equations, object meta-data, server APIs, and a thousand other kinds
of structured information.
So XML is Just Like HTML?
7/31/2019 A Technical Introduction to XML
https://www.xml.com/pub/a/98/10/guide0.html 3/31
No. In HTML, both the tag semantics and the tag set are xed. An
