Ex Parte Dettinger et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201310857746 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DETTINGER ET AL. ____________________ Appeal 2010-011306 Application 10/857,746 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011306 Application 10/857,746 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-8 and 29. Claims 9-28 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates generally to data processing and, more particularly, to creating queries using linked result fields (Spec. 1, ¶ [0002]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of creating an abstract query, comprising: receiving user input selecting, as a result field for the abstract query, at least one logical field from a plurality of logical fields abstractly describing data in a database; upon determining that the at least one selected logical field includes link information defining one or more linked logical fields from the plurality of logical fields, generating the abstract query on the basis of the at least one selected logical field, the one or more linked logical fields and the link information; and receiving query results produced by execution of the abstract query. Appeal 2010-011306 Application 10/857,746 3 C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Dettinger US 6,996,558 B2 Feb. 7, 2006 Claims 1-8 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Dettinger. II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in finding that Dettinger discloses “receiving user input selecting… at least one logical field from a plurality of logical fields” and “upon determining that the at least one selected logical field includes link information…, generating the abstract query” (claim 1). III. FINDING OF FACT The following Finding of Fact (FF) is shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Dettinger 1. Dettinger discloses a data repository abstraction component comprising a plurality o field specifications, wherein a field composition is provided for each logical field available for composition of an abstract query and each field specification comprises a logical field name and an associated access method that associates the logical field name to a particular physical data representation in a database (col. 6, ll. 33-44; Figs. 2A-B). 2. Access methods depend upon the number of different types of logical fields to be supported (col. 6, ll. 56-58). Appeal 2010-011306 Application 10/857,746 4 3. Composed access methods compute a logical field from one or more physical fields using an expression supplied as part of the access method definition, such as by mapping the logical field name “AgeInDecades” to “AgeInYears/10” (col. 7, ll. 14-12; Fig. 2B). IV. ANALYSIS Appellants contend that “nothing in the description of a logical field specification in Dettinger… disclose the claimed limitations related to one logical field including a reference or link to another” (App. Br. 13). In particular, Appellants contend that “nothing in this passage describes ‘link information defining one or more linked logical fields from the plurality of logical fields,’ as recited” (App. Br. 13-14). However, we give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In claim 1, the claimed method comprises generating an abstract query “upon determining” that the logical field includes link information. That is, claim 1 does not positively recite any “determining” or even “generating” step, but instead recites “upon determining” that the logical field includes “link information,” the abstract query is generated. Given the language used, the “upon determining” clause is reasonably interpreted to merely be a condition that may not ever happen. That is, claim 1 does not require that the selected logical field includes link information or that the abstract query is generated, but rather, the abstract query is generated only if the logical field is determined to include the link information. Appeal 2010-011306 Application 10/857,746 5 Furthermore, we find Appellants’ principal argument urging patentability is predicated on non-functional descriptive material (i.e., the type or content of the information/data that is selected). (App. Br. 13-14). The informational content of non-functional descriptive material is not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, at 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Lowry does not claim merely the information content of a memory . . . . Nor does he seek to patent the content of information resident in a database.”). See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2006-1003, aff’d, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006)); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, the informational content of the information/data that is selected is entitled to no weight in the patentability analysis. Accordingly, claim 1 merely requires a method that comprises “receiving user input selected... at least one logical field from a plurality of logical fields”. In fact, claim 1 merely requires receiving data. Dettinger discloses creating an abstract query by receiving selections of logical fields (FF 1). That is, Dettinger discloses “receiving user input selected... at least one logical field from a plurality of logical fields,” as required by claim 1. Furthermore, Dettinger discloses applying different types of logical fields (FF 2), wherein one logical field name “AgeInDecades” may be linked to another field name “AgeInYears/10” (FF 3). That is, contrary to Appellant’ contention that Dettinger does not disclose “link information defining one or more linked logical fields from the plurality of logical Appeal 2010-011306 Application 10/857,746 6 fields” (App. Br. 13-14), Dettinger does indeed disclose linked logical fields, and therefore, link information thereof. Thus, even if we were to give “link information” consideration, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Dettinger discloses such information. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Dettinger. Appellants similarly argue for dependent claim 3 that “[n]othing in the access methods [of Dettinger] specifies a relationship between two or more logical fields” (App. Br. 14). Similarly, as for independent claim 29, Appellants repeat the contention that Dettinger does not “disclose the claimed limitations related to one logical field including a reference or link to another logical field” (App. Br. 15). However, similar to claim 1, claims 3 and 29 do not positively require that the selected logical field includes link information. Further, Appellants are again urging patentability predicated on non-functional descriptive material. In view of our broad interpretation of the claims, we also find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 29 over Dettinger. For similarly reasons, Appellants’ argument for dependent claims 4-8 that “at no point does the logical field specification [of Dettinger] specify an ‘insert operation’” (App. Br. 15) are predicated on non-functional descriptive material. We also find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-8 over Dettinger. Appeal 2010-011306 Application 10/857,746 7 V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation