Ex Parte Chirayath et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2016

13275941 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/275,941 10/18/2011 Vinod P. Chirayath
70303 7590 03/11/2016
IBM RALEIGH IPLAW (DL)
C/O DELIZIO LAW, PLLC
15201 MASON ROAD
SUITE 1000-312
CYPRESS, TX 77433
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.
RSW920110011US1 6609
EXAMINER
TRUONG, CAM YT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/11/2016 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):
USPTO@DELIZIOLA W.COM
USPT02@DELIZIOLA W.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte VINOD P. CHIRAYATH, ZACKERY M. ENGLAND,
VENKATESH S. GOPAL, and SALVADOR LEDEZMA
Appeal2014-003954
Application 13/275,941
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-19, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003954
Application 13/275,941
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method of searching a
hierarchical database using text input. Spec iJ 4-8.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the limitation in dispute emphasized,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for searching a hierarchical database structure
of a database management system, the method comprising:
detecting text input in a database search field, wherein the
text input defines a search for data in the hierarchical database
structure, wherein the hierarchical database structure includes
items, and wherein the items include one or more of actions to be
performed on data in the hierarchical database structure, indexes
for looking up data in the hierarchical database structure, and
database schemas defining databases in the hierarchical database
structure;
determining that the text input does not include text
specifYing a path in the hierarchical database structure;
selecting items in the hierarchical database structure based
on the text input;
presenting selectable options in a graphical user interface,
wherein the selectable options are associated with the items in
the hierarchical database structure;
detecting selection of one of the selectable options,
wherein the one of the selectable options is associated with one
of the items; and
presenting, in the graphical user interface, data associated
with the one of the items.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gagne
, us 6,011,562 Jan. 4, 2000
Richardson US 2004/0199539 Al Oct. 7, 2004
2
Appeal2014-003954
Application 13/275,941
Lundberg
Murthy
Sedlar
Martins
Balabhadrapatruni
Holte
US 2006/0212471 Al Sep.21,2006
US 200710016604 A 1 Jan. 18,2007
US 2008/0215528 Al Sep.4,2008
US 2009/0177988 Al July 9, 2009
US 7,809,703 Bl Oct. 5, 2010
US 2010/0332325 Al Dec. 30, 2010
REJECTIONS2
Rl. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holte in view of Murthy and
Sedlar. Final Act. 4-10.
R2. Claims 4, 9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Holte in view of Murthy, Sedlar, and Gagne. Final
Act. 10-11.
R3. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holte in view of Murthy, Sedlar, and Martins. Final Act.
11-12.
R4. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holte in view of Murthy, Sedlar, Martins, Richardson, and
Balabhadrapatruni. Final Act. 13-14.
R5. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holte in view of Lundberg and
Sedlar. Final Act. 14-19.
2 In addition to the rejections recited above, the Examiner rejected claims
11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming non-statutory subject matter.
Final Act. 3. The Examiner withdrew the rejection in the Answer. Ans. 5.
3
Appeal2014-003954
Application 13/275,941
R6. Claims 4, 9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Holte in view of Lundberg, Sedlar, and Gagne.
Final Act. 19.
R7. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holte in view of Lundberg, Sedlar, and Martins. Final
Act. 19-21.
R8. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holte in view of Lundberg, Sedlar, Martins, Richardson,
and Balabhadrapatruni. Final Act. 21-23.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We do not
consider arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make
in the Briefs. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010), 2010 WL 889747 (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to
present arguments on a particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular
rejection - the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection."). We disagree with Appellants'
arguments regarding the pending claims.
Rejections RI, R2, R4, R5, R6, and R8
With regard to the prior art cited in both rejections Rl and R5,
Appellants make only one argument: that the Examiner erred in finding
Sedlar teaches or suggests "determining that the text input does not include
4
Appeal2014-003954
Application 13/275,941
text specifying a path in the hierarchical database structure" as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 11 (discussing Rl), 13 (relying on same argument for
rejection R5). Specifically, Appellants argues that because Sedlar
determines if there are no more filenames in the input pathname, the input
pathname must have included a path. App Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2.
According to Appellant, that is the opposite of what is recited in claim 1. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, Sedler Figure 8-which includes the step of determining if
there are no more filenames in the input path-teaches the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 7-8. More specifically, if there is no hierarchical
information in the input, then the control proceeds directly to step 820. Id.;
see also Sedlar Fig. 8. Because the very first step (item 802) is determining
if there are "any more filenames in the input pathname," the first step is
determining whether or not there is hierarchical information included.
Sedlar Fig. 8, ,-i 67. If there is hierarchical information, then control is sent
to step 804. Id. But, if there is no hierarchical information-that is, no more
filenames in the input pathname-control is sent to step 820. Id. In order to
determine that control should be passed to step 820, Sedlar is effectively
determining that there is no text specifying a path. Although Sedlar does not
use the same language as the claims, there is no requirement in an
obviousness analysis for the prior art to "contain a description of the subject
matter of the appealed claim in ipsissimis verbis." In re May, 574 F.2d
1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of claims 6 and 11, which are argued on the same
5
Appeal2014-003954
Application 13/275,941
grounds (App. Br. 12-13), and claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, and
19,3 which are not argued separately (App., Br. 13).
With respect to dependent claims 4, 9, 14, and 17, Appellants merely
contend that because the additional references used in the rejections of these
claims (Gagne, Martins, Richardson, and Balabhadrapatruni) do not cure the
deficiencies in claim 1, the dependent claims are not obvious. App. Br. 14-
17. Because we determine there are no deficiencies associated with claim 1
for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of these claims.
Claim 16 (Rejections R3 and R7)
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Martins teaches or
suggests "the text input includes one or more keywords specifying filters to
be applied to during selection of items in the hierarchical database" as
recited in claim 16. App. Br. 15. According to Appellants, "Martins teaches
that filters may be selected for application via radio buttons of a graphical
user interface." Id. (citing Martins Fig. 6, ,-i 52).
The Examiner finds Martins Figure 7 teaches keywords shown in
textual form. Final Act. 11. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Martins' s teaching to
Holte's system-which includes using text input in a database search field
(Final Act. 4)-"to allow a user to select specific item of data dimensions
that the user would like to view." Final Act. 12.
3 Appellants identify dependent claims 18 and 19 in the caption without
presenting any argument regarding Examiner error. Compare App. Br. 11
with, App. Br. 13. Accordingly, we treat claims 18 and 19 as grouped with
the independent claim from which they depend.
6
Appeal2014-003954
Application 13/275,941
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred. First, claim 16 is silent on how the text is inputted-such as by typing
or the selection of a radio button. Claim App's (at App. Br. 23). Instead,
claim 16 only recites that the "text input includes one or more keywords
specifying filters" without any limitation on how the text is inputted. Id.
Because Appellants' argument focusing on how the text is inputted is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims, it is unpersuasive. In re Self,
671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Instead, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner's finding (Final Act. 11) that Martin's Figure 7 teaches the
disputed limitation.
Second, nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed
invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly,
we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments-which focus solely on
Martins and not the combination of Martins and Holte relied on by the
Examiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-19.
7
Appeal2014-003954
Application 13/275,941
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8