Ex Parte Kaufmann et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201612956364 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation