Ex Parte Chirayath et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 9, 201613275941 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation