Ex Parte Fenlon et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 17, 2012

10191876 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/191,876 07/08/2002 Peter Fenlon 7095LD-1 5175
22442 7590 05/18/2012
Sheridan Ross PC
1560 Broadway
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
TROTTER, SCOTT S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PETER FENLON, ANDREW DAVIES, and KENNETH
TINDALL
____________

Appeal 2010-002180
Application 10/191,876
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002180
Application 10/191,876

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 10-11, and 13-14 which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a system and method
for identifying an embedded device to a server system. (Spec. 1:10-12).
Claim 4, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.

4. A method of accessing a relational database from an embedded
computing device by way of an appropriate set of commands
comprising: providing the set of commands including an enumerable
set of parameterised strings of commands each of which is identified
with a transaction ID;
[1] identifying each transaction ID with two format strings of
commands, one of which describes a mapping between data supplied
by the embedded computing device in its own native format;
[2] then passing the set of commands to the relational database
as executable commands, [3] and the other of which describes a
mapping between fields returned from the relational database as a
result of the executable commands in a format readable by the
embedded computing device.

Appeal 2010-002180
Application 10/191,876

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:

Ramasubramani EP 0942568 A2 Sep. 15, 1999

Dr. Richard Grimes, Professional DC OM Programming, 1997, Wrox
Press Ltd., pages 113-116 and 512-514.

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 3-5, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the EPO reference, Grimes, and Official Notice.
2. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Grimes and Official Notice.

THE ISSUES
With regards to claim 4, the issue turns on whether the prior art
discloses claim limitations [1] and [3]. The remaining claims turn on a
similar issue.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported
at least by a preponderance of the evidence:1 Additional facts may appear in
the Analysis section below.

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2010-002180
Application 10/191,876

4
FF1. The EPO reference at Col. 8:18-41 and Grimes at page 116 do not
disclose “identifying each transaction ID with two format strings of
commands one of which describes a mapping between data supplied by the
embedded computing device in its own native format” and “the other of
which describes a mapping between fields returned from the relational
database as a result of the executable commands in a format readable by the
embedded computing device”.

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 4 is improper because
the cited prior art fails to disclose claim limitations [1] and [3] cited above
(Br. 13-14, Reply Br. A1-A2).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitations are shown in the prior art (Ans. 4-6).
We agree with the Appellants. Claim limitations [1] and [3] require:
“identifying each transaction ID with two format strings of commands
one of which describes a mapping between data supplied by the
embedded computing device in its own native format” and “the other
of which describes a mapping between fields returned from the
relational database as a result of the executable commands in a
format readable by the embedded computing device”. (Claim 1,
emphasis added).

The EPO reference and Grimes at the portions cited by the Examiner
in the Answer do not disclose these cited claim limitations (FF1). The
Examiner has also taken Official Notice that is old and known that the
database would involve sending commands such as queries (Ans. 4) and also
that “parameterized strings” are old and well known in the art (Ans. 5-6).
Appeal 2010-002180
Application 10/191,876

5
We disagree with the analysis presented by the Examiner. Claim
limitations [1] and [3] require not only general “commands” and “queries”
but also specifically require “identifying each transaction ID with two format
strings of commands” one of which “describes a mapping between fields
returned from the relational database as a result of the executable
commands in a format readable by the embedded computing device”. The
Examiner has not shown that these specific claimed features are known in
art by the general statements that “commands” and “queries” are well
known.
Note that the claim limitation [1] specifically requires two formats of
strings commands which is different that general commands and queries.
Further, in claim limitation [3] the command directed to mapping describes
the way the mapping between the fields is returned from the relational
databases which is more than a general command line or query which has
been asserted as being known in the art. The cited claim limitations [1] and
[3] cannot be said to exist in the cited prior art beyond either probabilities or
possibilities and is not necessarily inherent.
For these reasons the rejection of claim 4 is not sustained. The
remaining claims contain a similar claim limitation and the rejection of these
claims is not sustained for these same reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims the claims listed in the Rejection section above.

Appeal 2010-002180
Application 10/191,876

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 10-11, and 13-14 is
reversed.

REVERSED

MP