Ex Parte Kaufmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2016

12956364 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
12/956,364 11/30/2010 Artur Kaufmann 000005-015700US 9245
58735 7590 12/27/2016
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
EXAMINER
HOLLAND, SHERYL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2016 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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARTUR KAUFMANN, TOM BRAUER,
SYLVIA BEATE STIEFVATER, GEORG LANG,
and
BEATE SCHWENK
Appeal 2016-003496
Application 12/956,364
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, and 28.1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Although the Final Action (dated March 16, 2015) rejected claims 11, 12,
15, 16, and 19-29 (see Final Act. 3), claims 15, 19, 22, 24, 27, and 29 were
canceled by the Amendment after Final filed June 9, 2015, which was
entered by the Examiner in the Advisory Action mailed June 18, 2015.
Appeal 2016-003496
Application 12/956,364
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system and method for
“processing information stored in databases” by “continuously generating
individual records and storing the individual records in a database as a
plurality of records” (Spec. 12; Abstract).
Independent claim 11, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
11. A computer implemented method of processing
information stored in a data structure, comprising:
receiving, by an application server, configuration
information regarding a plurality of parallel tables in a database,
wherein the configuration information includes application-
level information about a business process executed by the
application server, wherein the application-level information
includes time period information and transaction amount
information;
determining, by the application server, a first number of
tables according to the time period information;
adjusting, by the application server, the first number of
tables to a second number of tables according to the transaction
amount information;
controlling, by the application server, a database server to
create the plurality of parallel tables in the database such that
the plurality of parallel tables have the second number of tables;
storing, by the application server, a plurality of rules,
wherein the plurality of rules use the application-level
information about the business process executed by the
application server;
receiving, by the application server, a transaction;
controlling, by the application server, the database server
to store the transaction in a single appropriate parallel table
according to the plurality of rules;
storing one of the plurality of parallel tables for a defined
duration;
2
Appeal 2016-003496
Application 12/956,364
determining that the defined duration has passed by using
a date of a latest entry in the one of the plurality of parallel
tables; and
removing the one of the plurality of parallel tables from
the database after the defined duration has passed.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Mark (US
2006/0140368 Al, published June 29, 2006), Zobin (US 2008/0077612 Al,
published Mar. 27, 2008), and Johnson (US 2009/0182779 Al, published
July 16, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Appellants elect claim 11 as their representative claim (App. Br. 12).
Appellants contend Zobin does not disclose the claimed determining a
defined duration has passed by using a date of a latest entry in a parallel
table (App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 3^4). Appellants also assert Zobin does
not disclose the claimed date of a latest entry that “refers to the date
(timestamp) on which that particular record was entered into the system”
(Reply Br. 3), and does not “perform[] any action in relation to a date of
latest entry” (Reply Br. 4; see also App. Br. 14). Appellants additionally
contend Zobin does not teach or suggest removing a table from a database,
as claimed; rather, Zobin removes a view, not a table (App. Br. 17; Reply
Br. 4—5). That is, Zobin’s views are objects in an object-oriented database,
not tables in a relational database (App. Br. 16), and “one of ordinary skill in
the art would not consider Zobin’s view to be a table, according to the
3
Appeal 2016-003496
Application 12/956,364
standard meaning of the term ‘table’” (Reply Br. 4; see also App. Br. 16
(citing Zobin || 13—14, 27, 33—34, 69)). We do not agree with Appellants.
Rather, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own.
Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Zobin’s lifespan, having a
beginning date and an end date, teaches a defined duration, and Zobin’s
latest entry of the end date teaches a date of a latest entry used to determine
the defined duration has passed (Ans. 22 (citing Zobin || 29, 33, 156—160);
Final Act. 9 (rejecting claim 19 whose features were incorporated into claim
11 via the Amendment dated June 9, 2015)).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “date of a
latest entry,” in light of Appellants’ Specification, encompasses Zobin’s
latest entry of an end date (Ans. 22 (citing Zobin || 156—160); see Zobin |
159 (latest entry of May 01, 2001 in the EndDate column)). Appellants’
Specification describes “system 100 uses the date of the latest entry for a
table set to check the residence time. For example, if the latest record in the
first table (see 222 above) is dated 31 January 2010, the system 100 uses
that date when checking the residence time'1'’ (emphases added) (Spec. | 64).
Appellants contend it is clear from their Specification that the date of a latest
entry in a table is a timestamp (App. Br. 13 (citing Spec. 24, 31, 64)).
Appellants further assert Zobin uses timestamps, but the timestamps are
associated with objects, not with each record (App. Br. 14 (citing Zobin ||
183—184, 188—189)). That is, Zobin uses timestamps to insert a row and not
in relation to a lifespan determination (id. ). In contrast, Appellants’ method
uses “the date (timestamp) on which that particular record was entered
into the system” (Reply Br. 3).
4
Appeal 2016-003496
Application 12/956,364
Appellants’ arguments, however, are not commensurate in scope with
claim 11, which does not specify “a date of a latest entry” is a timestamp on
which a record was entered into the system (Ans. 22). Thus, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that determining “the end date of the lifespan is
reached” using the latest entry of the lifespan’s end date is the same as
“using a date of a latest entry in the one of the plurality of parallel tables” to
determine a defined duration has passed (Ans. 22—23).
Appellants’ argument that Zobin discloses views and not tables is
without merit (App. Br. 15—16). Appellants recognize Zobin’s paragraph 27
teaches a “database having a set of tables, the tables each having a set of
fields (of which some can be used as keys), and the tables having a set of
records” (App. Br. 16 (citing Zobin 127)). Appellants submit, for the first
time in the Reply Brief, evidence including US Patent 8,402,017, US Patent
8,751,543, and US Patent 5,737,591 as showing “one of ordinary skill in the
art would not consider a ‘view’ and a ‘table’ to be the same thing” (Reply
Br. 4—5). The Reply Brief, however, is not an opportunity to present new
evidence that could have been submitted in the principal brief on appeal to
rebut the Examiner’s rejection, but was not. See Ex parte Borden, 2010 WL
191083 at *2 (BPAI 2010) (informative); see also 37 C.F.R § 41.41(b)(2)
(2012). Accordingly, we do not consider Appellants’ untimely submitted
evidence.
Even if we considered these references, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Zobin’s temporal view/object in a database teaches or at least
suggests a table in a database (Ans. 23—24 (citing Zobin Fig. 1; || 27, 33,
154—156)). Zobin’s Figure 1 illustrates multiple “OBJECT[S] (E.G.,
TEMPORAL VIEW[S] f of a database 1 that may be “a relational enterprise
5
Appeal 2016-003496
Application 12/956,364
database” (see Zobin Fig. 1,134 (emphasis added)), and Zobin’s paragraph
27 explains a relational database has tables with records (see Zobin 127).
Thus, Zobin’s object/temporal view teaches or at least suggests a table (see
also Zobin 1156 (disclosing a temporal view with rows and columns of
records arranged in a table)). Thus, as recognized by the Examiner, Zobin’s
temporal view removal from a database teaches or at least suggests the
claimed removing a table from the database (Ans. 23—24 (citing Zobin
11 154—156)). Zobin’s removing a temporal view is commensurate with the
broad description of “removing” a table in Appellants’ Specification (see
Zobin, 1155 (“Removes Temporal View and all associated AttributeSets
from the system.”), 1 66 (“the final record is being removed from the
system, and has no associated in-progress record.”)).2
In light of the broad terms recited in claim 11 and the arguments
presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish the claimed
invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Thus, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 11. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 20 and 25, and dependent claims 12, 16, 21, 23, 26, and
28, argued therewith (App. Br. 12).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, 23, 25,
26, and 28 is affirmed.
2 Appellants’ Specification provides “the table (see 222) is removed from the
database. . . . The table may be deleted, moved to archival storage, etc.'n
(Spec. 129 (emphases added)).
6
Appeal 2016-003496
Application 12/956,364
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7