Ex Parte 7167864 et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 26, 201695000700 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 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. 95/000,700 09/14/2012 7167864 6702-00400 9439 35690 7590 01/26/2016 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. P.O. BOX 398 AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398 EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2016 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 ________________ MICROSTRATEGY INC. Requester v. VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE INC. Patent Owner and Appellant ________________ Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 Technology Center 3900 ________________ Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Patent Owner appeals the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 8, 11–14, 16–24, 26–29, 33, 36–39, and 41–49. PO App. Br. 3. Claims 9 and 34 have been canceled and the remaining claims are not subject to Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 2 reexamination. See id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315 (pre-AIA). Claims 1–4, 8, 11, 14, 16–24, 26–29, 33, 36, 39, and 41–49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Microsoft Office 97 Help (a printed copy of Microsoft Office 97 On-Line Help for the applications Microsoft Access 97 and Microsoft Excel 97 stored in the files ACMAIN80.HLP and XLMAIN8.HLP). RAN 6–7. Claims 1–4, 8, 11, 14, 16–24, 26–29, 33, 36, 39, and 41–49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bogrett (US 6,842,758 B1; issued Jan. 11, 2005). RAN 10. Claims 12 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bogrett and Aslin (US 4,943,919; issued July 24, 1990). RAN 10. Claims 13 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bogrett and Shebini (US 4,858,146; issued Aug. 15, 1989). RAN 10– 11. Claims 1–4, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16–24, 26–29, 33, 36, 38, 39, and 41–49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the Collection of Platinum References (Erik Thomsen, OLAP Solutions: Building Multidimensional Information Systems, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997; PLATINUM Technology announces availability of lnfoBeacon 3.1, an on-line analytical processing product; performance, functionality, scalability and open architecture of new release represents rule change in Enterprise OLAP market, Business Wire, June 3, 1996; InfoBeacon Delivers Complete OLAP Solution to CPI, Data Management Review, October 1997; PLATINUM InfoBeacon Administrator Guide, Version 4.0.3, Platinum technology, inc., Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 3 August 1998; PLATINUM Forrest and Trees Technical Overview, Computer Associates, 1999; PLATINUM Forrest and Trees Fact Sheet, Computer Associates, 1999; PLATINUM Forrest and Trees Brochure, Computer Associates, 1999). RAN 11–12. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding arose from a request by MicroStrategy Inc. for an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,167,864 B1, entitled “Multimedia Inspection Database System (MIDAS) for Dynamic Run-Time Data Evaluation” (the ’864 patent). Patent Owner and Requester both note related appeals and related litigations. See PO App. Br. 3, 3PR Resp. Br. 4. We have already affirmed the Examiner in Reexamination Control 95/000,697 and Reexamination Control 95/000,699. The ’864 patent “relates to inspection information systems for evaluating structures that provide data query and update capabilities.” ’864 patent, col. 1, ll. 16–18. Claims 1 and 8 are illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method executed by a programmable apparatus, comprising: a. receiving with a computer a data retrieval request from a graphical user interface (GUI) on a programmable user display device, b. in response to the retrieval request, accessing with a computer a plurality of disparate digital databases and retrieving with a computer requested data from such databases, c. assembling with a computer an OLAP [Online Analytical Processing] cube of the retrieved data, wherein the OLAP cube is assembled dynamically on demand without accessing a multidimensional database of stored retrieved data, Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 4 d. displaying the OLAP cube to the user using the GUI, e. providing a plurality of access codes, each access code corresponding to a number of disparate databases that may be accessed with the access code, f. assigning each user an access code, and j. receiving and responding to a data access request only if the request is from a user with code authorizing access to all relevant constituent databases with the requested data. 8. The method in claim 1, where the databases include SQL databases, relational databases, object oriented databases, multi-dimensional databases and flat databases. ANALYSIS THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1–4, 8, 11, 14, 16–24, 26–29, 33, 36, 39, AND 41–49 BY BOGRETT Claims 1–4, 11, 14, 16–24, 26–29, 36, 39, and 41–49 The Examiner finds Bogrett discloses all limitations of claim 1. RAN 10 (incorporating Request 19–21 and Claim Chart Exhibit L by reference). Patent Owner presents the following principal arguments: i. Under the correct construction, the recited disparate databases in claim 1 must be incompatible, and must exist concurrently in order to be accessed. See PO App. Br. 24–25 (citing Declaration of Latifur R. Khan ¶¶ 15.3, 19); see also PO App. Br. 25 (“plain language of claim 1 requires that multiple ones of the ‘disparate digital databases’ are accessed in response to a single request (‘the retrieval request’) during the course of assembling an OLAP cube”). Patent Owner cites to evidence of record, which states: “one of ordinary skill in database technology would recognize that ‘disparate databases’ must be more than merely distinct; they must be incompatible, for Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 5 example with respect to the DBMS [Database Management System] or database schema they implement.” PO App. Br. Evidence Appendix A, Khan Decl. ¶ 15.3. Patent Owner cites to evidence of record, which states: “JDBC [Java database connection] and ODBC [object database connection] are connection protocols that may be used to communicate with a database; they have nothing at all to do with how data is stored in the database or whether the databases are incompatible.” PO App. Br. Evidence Appendix A, Khan Decl. ¶ 19. ii. Bogrett’s databases 20 are not the disparate databases as recited. See PO App. Br. 25–28 (citing Declaration of Latifur R. Khan ¶ 19); see also PO Reb Br. 12–13. “Bogrett neither discloses nor suggests that multiple incompatible databases exist concurrently, and are accessed in response to a single retrieval request during the course of assembling an OLAP cube, as claimed.” PO App. Br. 26. “Bogrett’s entire discussion of ‘predefined query models’ demonstrates that a given query model is specific to a single particular database 20.” PO App. Br. 26. “Bogrett’s system provides multiple ‘generators’ to anticipate that customers may implement databases 20 using any one of several DBMSes, and multiple ‘predefined query models’ to assist users in querying a particular database 20.” PO App. Br. 27. iii. Bogrett’s multidimensional data model 100 does not provide online analytical processing because this processing is provided by Bogrett’s pivot viewer 136. PO App. Br. 29; see also PO Reb. Br. 14. Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 6 iv. Bogrett’s multidimensional data model 100 is created by accessing a multidimensional database of stored retrieved data. See PO App. Br. 29–30; see also PO Reb Br. 14–15. v. Borgrett’s pivot viewer 136 accesses a multidimensional database of stored retrieved data. See PO App. Br. 30–31 (citing Declaration of Latifur R. Khan ¶ 20). Patent Owner cites to evidence of record, which states: “to the extent Bogrett discloses assembling an OLAP cube, Bogrett only does so using a previously stored ‘multidimensional database of stored retrieved data.’” PO App. Br. Evidence Appendix A, Khan Decl. ¶ 20. vi. Bogrett’s user profiles do not correspond to the recited access codes. See PO App. Br. 31–32; see also PO Reb. Br. 15–16. Regarding Patent Owner’s arguments (i) and (ii), we see no error in the Examiner’s findings. We agree with the Examiner that Bogrett’s databases 20 reasonably are described as the recited disparate databases of claim 1. RAN 10; see also ACP 32–33 (citing Bogrett, col. 3, ll. 57–67; col. 6, ll. 20–48; col. 11, ll. 10–39). Bogrett (col. 3, ll. 64–67) discloses: “[T]he databases 20 may each be any Java database connection (JDBC) or object database connection (ODBC) compliant database, as well [as] a suitable data warehouse or datamart.” Bogrett (col. 6, ll. 30–34) discloses: “The dialog specific generators correspond to the different types of databases 20 accessed by or used in connection with the business intelligence portal 10. The dialog- specific generators may include, for example, Oracle, Sybase, DB2, and MS SQL generators.” Bogrett (col. 11, ll. 10–39) discloses generating a query Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 7 model that is subsequently executed. Bogrett (col. 11, ll. 59–62) elaborates “multidimensional storage model 100 is generated based on the results. At step 302, the multidimensional storage model 100 is used to generate pivot, drill through, and other views as requested by the user.” Further, nothing precludes claim 1’s “a data retrieval request” from including more than one data retrieval request, as is the case with Bogrett’s query models and database queries performed on databases 20. See Bogrett, col. 11, ll. 6–9 (“predefined query models 56 are generated and maintained on the server 30 by an administrator and provided to users upon request and verification of access privileges”). The Federal Circuit has addressed this matter of claim construction: “This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Patent Owner’s Specification does not preclude this interpretation. See ’864 patent, col. 10, ll. 23–26 (“The query 1215 is then executed and the results are displayed using the data display defined above. Queries 1215 can also be aggregated (e.g. (Query 1) AND (Query 2) OR (Query 3))”). Thus, based on the above discussion, Bogrett discloses accessing a plurality of disparate databases (Bogrett’s databases 20, which may be incompatible DBMSes, for example, Oracle, Sybase, DB2, and MS SQL, and which may exist concurrently and be supported by Bogrett’s dialog specific generators) in response to a plurality of data retrieval requests (Bogrett’s requests from a user for predefined query models), and Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 8 assembling an OLAP cube (Bogrett’s multidimensional storage model 100) of the retrieved data. Regarding Patent Owner’s arguments (iii) and (iv), we see no error in the Examiner’s findings. We agree with the Examiner that Bogrett’s multidimensional data model 100 reasonably is described as the recited OLAP cube of claim 1. RAN 10. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s explanation: Bogrett discloses said multidimensional storage model (100) (i.e., said OLAP cube) that is assembled dynamically on demand in response to a query request (i.e., in response to a retrieval request; See Bogrett, col. 14, lines 48–54), and said multidimensional storage model (100) (i.e., said OLAP cube) is assembled without accessing any intermediate multidimensional database of stored retrieved data (i.e., the multidimensional model manager 44 generates the multidimensional storage model 100 by first fetching data records from the source databases — assembling OLAP cube; See Bogrett, col. 14, line 55 through col. 15, line 5). ACP 34. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument (iii), the processing provided by Bogrett’s pivot viewer 136 corresponds to OLAP operations while multidimensional model 100 corresponds to the OLAP cube. See Bogrett, col. 14, l. 48 – col. 15, l. 5 (discussing generation of multidimensional storage model 100); see also Bogrett, col. 8, ll. 28–37 (discussing pivot viewer 136). Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument (iv), multidimensional storage model 100 is generated by fetching source data records (see Bogrett, col. 14, l. 48 – col. 15, l. 5), and reasonably describes assembling the OLAP cube without accessing a multidimensional database of stored retrieved data. The reference to entry storage 370 (see Bogrett, col. 14, ll. 59–65) is not an Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 9 access to a multidimensional database of stored retrieved data prohibited by the claims; rather, Bogrett is describing the generation of multidimensional storage model 100 from the source data records. Thus, Bogrett discloses assembling with a computer an OLAP cube (Bogrett’s multidimensional storage model 100) of the retrieved data (data retrieved in response to Bogrett’s requests from a user for predefined query models), wherein the OLAP cube is assembled dynamically on demand without accessing a multidimensional database of stored retrieved data as recited in claim 1. Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (v), we see no error in the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner relies on Bogrett’s multidimensional storage model 100 — not Bogrett’s pivot viewer 136 — to describe the recited OLAP cube. See ACP 33–34. Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (vi) that Bogrett’s user profiles do not correspond to the recited access codes, we see no error in the Examiner’s findings. We agree with the Examiner that Bogrett’s user profiles reasonably are described as the recited access codes. RAN 10; see also ACP 34–35 (citing Bogrett, col. 4, ll. 37–60). Bogrett (col. 4, ll. 37–39) discloses: “The user profiles 52 each define a specific range of privileges for a user and one or more security groups 54 to which a user has access.” The Examiner also indicates that the ’864 patent does not define “access code” and construes the phrase under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure. ACP 35. The description in the prior art need not be ipsis verbis in order to teach the disputed claim limitation. See in re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 10 We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s explanation: “Bogrett describes providing a plurality of user profiles, where each user profile corresponds to one or more disparate databases through access permissions to query models associated with the databases.” ACP 35; see also Bogrett, col. 11, ll. 12–14 (“server determines an accessible portion of the predefined query model 56 based on the user’s privileges”). Thus, Bogrett provides a plurality of access codes (Bogrett’s user profiles defining individual user security rights and privileges). See Bogrett, col. 4, ll. 37–39. Further, each of Bogrett’s user profiles corresponds to a number of disparate databases that may be accessed with the user profile, because the user profile defines individual privileges that correspond to an accessible portion of a query model, which is executed on a corresponding database. See Bogrett, col. 11, ll. 10–39. Finally, Bogrett assigns each user a user profile (the defined individual user security rights and privileges provide the user profile, which is then assigned to a user). Thus, Bogrett discloses the argued claim limitations relating to the recited access codes. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2–4, 11, 14, 16–24, 26–29, 36, 39, and 41–49, which are not separately argued with particularity. Claims 8 and 33 The Examiner finds Bogrett discloses all limitations of claims 8 and 33. RAN 10 (incorporating Request 19–21 and Claim Chart Exhibit L by reference). Patent Owner presents the following principal argument: Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 11 “The current rejection does not attempt to show that Bogrett explicitly discloses the claimed ‘object oriented databases’ or ‘flat databases,’ instead relying on an inherency theory.” PO App. Br. 32. “[M]erely disclosing an ODBC (or JDBC) interface fails to inherently disclose any particular member of the universe of databases compatible with that interface, because none of those members necessarily follow from the mere disclosure of the interface.” PO App. Br. 33. Regarding Patent Owner’s argument, we see no error in the Examiner’s findings. Claim 8 recites “the databases include SQL databases, relational databases, object oriented databases, multi-dimensional databases and flat databases.” Patent Owner does not dispute that Bogrett discloses SQL, relational, or multi-dimensional databases. We thus confine our discussion to whether Bogrett discloses the recited object oriented and flat databases. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s explanation: Bogrett discloses (i) a standard interface ODBC (Object Database Connection) function, which can make the ODBC- compliant applications disclosed in Bogrett access any DBMS including the object-oriented databases, e.g., Objectivity/DB[] and ObjectStore[], using ODBC driver, and (ii) a standard interface JDBC (Java Database Connection) function, which can provide universal data access from the Java programming language, and access virtually any data source from relational databases to spreadsheets and flat files[]. ACP 36 (citing Bogrett, col. 3, lines 57-67). Bogrett (col. 3, lines 64-67) discloses “the databases 20 may each be any Java database connection (JDBC) or object database connection Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 12 (ODBC) compliant database, as well[ a]s a suitable data warehouse or datamart.” We also agree with and adopt Requester’s explanation: “the issue of inherency should properly focus on whether, at the time of the ‘864 patent, the ‘Java database connection (JDBC) or object database connection (ODBC) compliant database[s]’ that Bogrett specifically describes accessing and assembling OLAP cubes from inherently included object oriented databases.” 3PR Resp. Br. 17. In short, we agree with the Examiner that Bogrett discloses object oriented databases and flat databases (Bogrett’s Java database connection (JDBC) or object database connection (ODBC) compliant databases) because a skilled artisan would have understood Bogrett’s JDBC and ODBC compliant databases to include well-known JDBC and ODBC compliant databases, including object-oriented databases and flat databases. Such databases follow from the disclosure of the JDBC and ODBC interfaces in Bogrett. The description in the prior art need not be ipsis verbis in order to teach or suggest the disputed claim limitation. See in re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 8, as well as claim 33, which is not separately argued with particularity. Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 13 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 12 AND 37 OVER BOGRETT AND ASLIN The Examiner finds Bogrett and Aslin teach all limitations of claims 12 and 37. RAN 10 (incorporating Request 21–22 and Claim Chart Exhibit M by reference). Patent Owner argues that Aslin does not remedy the purported deficiencies of Bogrett. PO App. Br. 33. For reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we need not address whether Aslin remedies the purported deficiencies of Bogrett. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 12 and 37. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 13 AND 38 OVER BOGRETT AND SHEBINI The Examiner finds Bogrett and Shebini teach all limitations of claims 13 and 38. RAN 10–11 (incorporating Request 23–24 and Claim Chart Exhibit N by reference). Patent Owner argues that Shebini does not remedy the purported deficiencies of Bogrett. PO App. Br. 33. For reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we need not address whether Shebini remedies the purported deficiencies of Bogrett. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 13 and 38. Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 14 THE REMAINING REJECTIONS Because we have affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of all the claims, we decline to reach the merits of the remaining rejections over the prior art. See, e.g., In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching rejections based on obviousness when claims already rejected as anticipated). ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 8, 11–14, 16–24, 26– 29, 33, 36–39, and 41–49 is affirmed. Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79. In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within the time provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983. AFFIRMED Appeal 2015-006431 Reexamination Control 95/000,700 Patent 7,167,864 B1 15 THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FISH & RICHARDSON PC (DC) PO Box 1022 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022 PATENT OWNER: MEYERTONS, HOOD, KILVIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. PO Box 398 Austin, TX 78767-0398 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation