Ex Parte Angrish et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2015

11959398 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111959,398 12/18/2007 Rohan Angrish
42425 7590 12/17/2015
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
50277-3325 2655
EXAMINER
DWIVEDI, MARESH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2015 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROHAN ANGRISH, JAMES W. WARNER, and
ZHENHUA LIU
Appeal2013-009918
Application 11/959,398
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., HUNG H. BUI, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 12-14, and 25-26. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE. 3
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Oracle International
Corporation. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 2 and 15 are conditionally allowed if rewritten in independent form
including all limitations of independent claims 1 and 14. Final Act. 9.
Similarly, claims 3-11 and 16-24 have been conditionally allowed based on
their dependency upon claims 2 and 15. Ans. 9.
3 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed March 25, 2013
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed August 5, 2013 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed June 3, 2013 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed August
Appeal2013-009918
Application 11/959,398
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
According to Appellants, commercial spreadsheet applications such as
Microsoft® Excel cannot directly access and modify data stored in relational
databases managed by a database server. Spec. i-f 3. Additional
intermediate, non-database server components are needed to convert,
translate, re-format, and otherwise process data from a database into data
that can be rendered as a spreadsheet (spreadsheet data) by a spreadsheet
application. Id. at i-f 4. For example, drivers that execute outside a database
server, such as Java Database Connectivity (JDBC) drivers or Open
Database Connectivity (ODBC) drivers, are required to perform data type
conversions, translations, and re-formatting of data between the spreadsheet
application and the database server. Id. at i-f 5.
As such, Appellants' invention provides techniques, shown in Figure
2; in which a spreadsheet application 200 can "directly" access and modify
spreadsheet data that is stored in a relational database managed by a
database server 210, via spreadsheet logic 212, without the help of these
intermediate, non-database server components. Id. i-fi-119--29.
Appellants' Figure 2 is reproduced below:
24, 2012 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed December 18, 2007
("Spec.").
2
Appeal2013-009918
Application 11/959,398
Im S!!realis~~~~;~~~
jliO. Database Server
I tau-·~ Log<
I
1
(e.g. MS Excel or i----1---12JA Fife Pm!ocd ln!Brlace ,
............................................ 1
Open Office Cale)
. XML View T riggern
\ .......................... ...r I
'-.. /
~-______.,..·
I r-·-·
I ,
·-·4--·J
I
Appellants' Figure 2 shows a spreadsheet application 200 "directly"
accesses and modifies spreadsheet data stored in a relational database
managed by a database server 210, via spreadsheet logic 212.
According to Appellants, "directly" means: (1) the database server
210 (via spreadsheet logic 212) can provide spreadsheet data in a format that
is understood, and can be rendered, by the spreadsheet application 200; and
(2) the spreadsheet application 200 can provide spreadsheet data in a format
that is understood, and can be processed, by the database server 210. Id.
if 19. In other words, "directly" means that a spreadsheet application 200
can access and render spreadsheet data that is stored in a relational database
202 without the help of any intermediate, non-database server components
(e.g., ODBC drivers) that transform, translate, convert, reformat, or
otherwise process the spreadsheet data exchanged between the spreadsheet
application 200 and the database server 210. Id.
3
Appeal2013-009918
Application 11/959,398
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellants' invention, as reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
at a database server, receiving a request from a
spreadsheet application to open a spreadsheet file, wherein the
request includes a filename for the file;
wherein spreadsheet data is stored in one or more
relational tables in one or more relational databases that are
managed by the database server;
in response to receiving said request to open a
spreadsheet file:
the database server retrieving spreadsheet data via
an eXtensible Markup Language (XML) view that is
defined by a query;
the database server converting said spreadsheet
data retrieved via the XML view into said spreadsheet
file;
the database server providing the spreadsheet file directly
to the spreadsheet application;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computer systems.
App. Br. 9--18 (Claims App.) (disputed limitations in italics).
Bohannon
Vayssiere
Evidence Considered
US 2005/0021548 Al
US 2008/0028288 Al
Jan.27,2005
Jan.31,2008
McFedries, Paul. Excel 2007 PivotTables and PivotCharts, Nov. 5,
2007.
4
Appeal2013-009918
Application 11/959,398
Examiner ;s Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 12-14, 25, and 26 [sic, claims 1 and 144] stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by McFedries. Final
Act. 2--4.
(2) Claims 12 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over McFedries and Vayssiere. Final Act. 4--8.
(3) Claims 13 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over McFedries and Bohannon. Final Act. 8-9.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether McFedries discloses all limitations of Appellants' independent
claims 1 and 14, including:
(1) "at a database server, receiving a request from a
spreadsheet application to open a spreadsheet file, wherein the
request includes a filename for the file;"
(2) "in response to receiving said request to open a
spreadsheet file:
the database server retrieving spreadsheet data via
an eXtensible Markup Language (XML) view that is defined by
a query;" and
(3) "the database server converting said spreadsheet
data retrieved via the XML view into said spreadsheet file."
App. Br. 3---6; Reply Br. 2-7.
4 Although the Examiner has indicated that claims 3-11 and 16-24 stand
rejected under§ 102(b) and§ 103(a), the Examiner has not provided any
rationale for the rejection but later confirmed that these claims are allowable
based on their respective dependent claims 2 and 15. Ans. 9
5
Appeal2013-009918
Application 11/959,398
ANALYSIS
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 14, the Examiner finds
McFedries discloses the relationship between a spreadsheet (Excel)
application and a database server including the disputed limitations: (1) "at a
database server, receiving a request from a spreadsheet application to open a
spreadsheet file, wherein the request includes a filename for the file" in the
form of a relational database management system (RDBMS) such as MS
Access or SQL server that stores spreadsheet data (Ans. 3 (citing McFedries,
pp. 176 and 226)); (2) "in response to receiving said request to open a
spreadsheet file" "the database server retrieving spreadsheet data via an
eXtensible Markup Language (XML) view that is defined by a query" in the
form of XML data stored in a relational database and a query for such data
to return to the MS Excel (id. (citing McFedries, p. 254)); and (3) "the
database seP1er converting said spreadsheet data retrieved via the Xl\1L vie\~1
into said spreadsheet file" in the form the MS Excel storing XML data
imported from the RDBMS data (id. (citing McFedries, p. 254)).
Appellants argue McFedries does not disclose the disputed limitations
of Appellants' independent claims 1 and 14. App. Br. 3---6; Reply Br. 2-7.
First, Appellants acknowledge McFedries describes that Excel PivotTables
can be created from external data such as data stored in databases and a user
can configure MS Query to access data in a particular database. App. Br. 5
(citing McFedries, p. 225). However, Appellants argue: (1) the user of
McFedries selects a database file, not a spreadsheet file; (2) even assuming if
the user's selection of a database file could be interpreted as Appellants'
claimed "request from a spreadsheet application to open a spreadsheet file",
6
Appeal2013-009918
Application 11/959,398
MS Query is not a database server; and, as such, (3) McFedries does not
disclose in any way Appellants' claimed "database server, receiving a
request from a spreadsheet application to open a spreadsheet file, wherein
the request includes a filename for the file" as recited in claims 1 and 14. Id.
at 5---6.
Second, Appellants argue McFedries merely describes data may be
imported into MS Excel from an XML file or accessing data from an XML
file. Id. at 3--4. However, Appellants argue such a disclosure is not the
same as Appellants' claimed "database server retrieving spreadsheet data"
"in response to receiving said request to open a spreadsheet file," much less
Appellants' claimed "database server retrieving spreadsheet data via an
eXtensible Markup Language (XML) view that is defined by a query." Id. at
3 (emphasis in original).
Third, Appellants acknowledge McFedries describes importing data
from an XML file into a spreadsheet. Id. at 4 (citing McFedries, p. 254).
However, Appellants argue McFedries does not disclose anything similar to
Appellants' claimed "database server converting said spreadsheet data
retrieved via the XML view into said spreadsheet file." Id. at 4--5.
The Examiner responds McFedries teaches:
(1) "servers store the RDBMS databases that store the
XML data/spreadsheet data that is imported into Excel" and
"because the selected XML file( s )/data that is stored on remote
databases stored on remote servers can be imported directly into
Excel, then as a result, there clearly is a request to open a
spreadsheet" (Ans. 7-8);
(2) "the XML data that is stored in the RDBMS
databases such as SQL Server or Microsoft Access on the
remote external servers store XML data that is accessed by
7
Appeal2013-009918
Application 11/959,398
XML views" and the "XML views" are broadly defined
"because such stored XML data that is imported from a remote
database stored on an external server is 'queried' as described
by McFedries (id. at 3--4); and
(3) "the imported XML data is converted into
spreadsheet data that can be viewed in an EXCEL table" and
such "direct importing results in a 'conversion' such that XML
data stored in an RDBMS is 'converted' into a format capable
of being displayed in normal Excel worksheets" (id. at 5-7).
We do not agree with the Examiner's findings. Anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102 is a question of fact. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2001 ). A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth
in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described in a single
prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). At the outset, we note McFedries discloses a
textbook entitled "Excel® 2007 PivotTables and PivotCharts" describing
how a user can create a PivotTable from external data [from an external data
source] imported into MS Excel 2007 worksheet, and such external data is
data that resides outside of MS Excel in a wide variety of external data
types, including database files, text files, and XML files. See McFedries
"Create a PivotTable from External Data"; "Define a Data Source"; and
"Appendix 3: Importing Data for PivotTables."
As correctly recognized by Appellants, McFedries only describes
sending requests (queries) to the database. Reply Br. 2 While a skilled
artisan would recognize such a request could include a filename for a file
requested by a user, there is no disclosure anywhere in McFedries to support
the Examiner's finding of Appellants' claimed "request" as including "a
8
Appeal2013-009918
Application 11/959,398
filename for the file." Reply Br. 2. Similarly, McFedries describes external
data can be XML files and these XML files can be imported into Excel.
While a skilled artisan would recognize such XML files could be stored in a
relational database system (RDBMS) such as Microsoft Access or SQL
server, as disclosed by McFedries, we discern no evidence from McFedries
to support the Examiner's finding of Appellants' claimed "spreadsheet
[XML] data" as being stored in a database, and more particularly, and being
retrieved "via an eXtensible Markup Language (XML) view that is defined
by a query" so that "the database server" could convert "said spreadsheet
data retrieved via the XML view into said spreadsheet file" as recited in
Appellants' claims 1 and 14.
Because McFedries does not disclose Appellants' claimed "database
server," "receiving a request [including a filename for the file] from a
spreadsheet application to open a spreadsheet file," "retrieving spreadsheet
data via an eXtensible Markup Language (XML) view," and "converting
said spreadsheet data retrieved via the XML view into said spreadsheet file"
as recited in claims 1 and 14, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claims 1 and 14 and their respective dependent claims 3-13 and
16-26.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 12-14, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) and§ 103(a).
9
Appeal2013-009918
Application 11/959,398
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1,
12-14, and 25-26.
REVERSED
tkl
10