Ex Parte Bostick et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 16, 201211427930 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JAMES E. BOSTICK, RANDOLPH M. FORLENZA, JOHN P. KAEMMERER, and RAGHURAMAN KALYANARAMAN ____________ Appeal 2009-015087 Application 11/427,930 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015087 Application 11/427,930 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claim 18 which constitutes the sole claim on appeal. Claims 1-17 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to the replication or “propagation” of databases using software tools to assist a database administrator (Spec. ¶¶ [0001] and [0003]). Relationships between tables are established using a primary key and a foreign key (Spec. ¶ [0002]). The primary key uniquely identifies a record in a table, and a foreign key establishes a relationship with a primary key in another table (id.). When replicating database tables, the integrity of the table relationship depends on the foreign key properly referencing the primary key (id.). Appellants disclose and claim a cyclic foreign key relationship, where tables are automatically propagated containing cyclic references, without permanently removing any foreign keys (Spec. ¶ [0010]; claim 18). Sole claim 18, with emphasis added to disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows: 18. A computer implemented process for propagating a plurality of database tables with cyclic foreign keys without permanently removing the cyclic foreign keys, the computer implemented process comprising: identifying a first source database table and a second source database table with a cyclic foreign key relationship by iterating through a plurality of records listed in a cyclic member table, that lists the plurality of database tables with cyclic foreign keys; Appeal 2009-015087 Application 11/427,930 3 creating a first target database table for said first source database table to propagate; copying said first source database table to said first target database table, wherein all cyclic foreign keys referencing said second source database table are replaced with "NULL"; copying said second source database table to a second target database table; iterating through the plurality of records of said cyclic member table in reverse order; and updating said first target database table with the cyclic foreign keys referencing the second source database table from the first source database table, wherein the plurality of database tables with cyclic foreign keys are propagated without permanently removing the cyclic foreign keys and without a violation error being thrown. The Rejection Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ramanathan (US 7,346,627 B2), Wang (US 7,383,273 B2), and Dillon (US 2004/0220956 A1). Ans. 3-6. Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ramanathan, Wang, and Dillon for numerous reasons, including: (1) Ramanathan fails to teach a cyclic foreign key relationship (App. Br. 12-13); (2) Wang fails to explicitly copy tables using cyclic foreign key references and instead uses a one-to-many relationship (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 4-5); Appeal 2009-015087 Application 11/427,930 4 (3) Dillon fails to disclose cyclic foreign key references or relationships (App. Br. 20-21); and (4) none of the cited prior art discloses cyclic foreign keys (Reply Br. 2-5). ISSUE Based on Appellants’ arguments in the briefs, the dispositive issue1 on Appeal is as follows: Did the Examiner err in finding claim 18 unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Ramanathan, Wang, and Dillon because Ramanathan, Wang, or Dillon, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest “cyclic foreign keys” or a “cyclic foreign key relationship,” as set forth in claim 18? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’ above contentions regarding claim 18, and highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. The Examiner finds that Ramanathan does not specifically teach cyclic foreign keys, but Wang does (Ans. 5 citing Wang at col. 2, ll. 22-54; col. 5, ll. 32-44; col. 6, ll. 55-67; col. 7, ll. 4-16; and col. 8, l. 60 to col. 9, l. 1 Appellants’ arguments present additional issues. The issue discussed herein is dispositive of the appeal. Therefore, we do not reach the additional issues. Appeal 2009-015087 Application 11/427,930 5 17; Ans. 8 citing col. 5, ll. 32-44 and col. 6, ll. 55-67). The Examiner then determines that Wang “show[s] two way mapping information for foreign keys of data objects is incorporated into the prior art of Ramanathan to teach propagating database tables with cyclic foreign keys” (Ans. 8). However, in none of the portions of Wang cited by the Examiner does Wang disclose, teach, or suggest the concept of cyclic foreign keys, or a cyclic foreign key relationship. Wang merely discloses using foreign keys which are stored in meta-data storage 104 (col. 5, ll. 31-34; col. 6, ll. 63-67; Abs.), but never uses the term “cyclic” or discusses how the foreign keys are considered to be “cyclic.” The Examiner also determines that Dillon teaches that all foreign keys referencing a second source database table are replaced with “NULL” (Ans. 5-6 citing Dillon at ¶¶ [0159], [0238], [0239], [0245], [0246], [0347], [0348], [0349], and [0352]). As with Wang, discussed supra, none of the portions of Dillon relied upon by the Examiner disclose, teach, or suggest the concept of cyclic foreign keys, or a cyclic foreign key relationship. Although Dillon does disclose foreign keys (¶ [0159]), foreign key references (¶ [0239], [0245], and [0246]), and setting foreign key references to NULL (¶ [0349] and [0352]), Dillon fails to even address the concept of cyclic foreign keys or a cyclic foreign key relationship. In view of the foregoing, we agree with Appellants that Ramanathan, Wang, or Dillon, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest “cyclic foreign keys” or a “cyclic foreign key relationship,” as set forth in claim 18. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 18 which recites “a cyclic foreign key relationship” for copying database tables with “cyclic foreign keys,” and “wherein all cyclic foreign keys referencing Appeal 2009-015087 Application 11/427,930 6 said second source database table [to be copied] are replaced with “‘NULL’” (claim 18). The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is a review body, rather than a place of initial examination. We have not reviewed claim 18 to the extent necessary to determine whether this claim is unpatentable over Ramanathan, Wang, Dillon, Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art regarding member tables (see Spec. ¶ [0006]; see also ¶ [0006] and Fig. 2 of U.S. Application 10/855,736, now abandoned), or any other prior art. We note that Attaluri (any of US 6,339,777 B1; US 6,484,181 B2; and US 2002/0099688 A1) teaches cyclic foreign key relationships. In the event of further prosecution we leave it to the Examiner to determine the patentability of claim 18, in other words, to determine whether it would have also been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Ramanathan, Wang, Dillon, and/or Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art with Attaluri’s teaching of a cyclic foreign key relationship (see the Abstracts of each of US 6,339,777 B1; US 6,484,181 B2; and US 2002/0099688 A1). CONCLUSIONS On the record before us, we conclude as follows: (1) The Examiner erred in finding that claim 18 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ramanathan, Wang, and Dillon, as applied by the Examiner. (2) The Examiner has not established a prima facie case that claim 18 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ramanathan, Appeal 2009-015087 Application 11/427,930 7 Wang, and Dillon because none of the applied references teach or suggest a cyclic foreign keys or a cyclic foreign key relationship. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 18 is reversed. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation