Ex Parte Kirk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2013

11646610 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2013)

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.
11/646,610 12/28/2006 Steven A. Kirk 1933.0280000 7299
82515 7590 12/23/2013
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
EXAMINER
MENG, JAU SHYA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVEN A. KIRK, DAVID E. WALRATH,
FANG-YING YEN and ROGER D. MACNICOL
___________

Appeal 2011-006528
Application 11/646,610
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006528
Application 11/646,610

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing claims 1, 4-6 and 9-23. Appeal Brief 5. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to a system, method and computer program
product for processing a database query wherein a table needed to resolve
the query is identified, creating an enumeration value and determining
whether the enumeration value is semantically equivalent to data from a data
field in the table. Abstract.

Illustrative Claim
1. A method comprising:
receiving a database query which references a column within a table,
wherein a column cell value from the column is represented using an
enumeration value and a lookup-table configured to translate the
enumeration value into the column cell value;
generating a set of query processing steps that, when executed by one
or more processors, provide a query result to the query;
passing a projection of the enumeration value to a first query
processing step of the set of query processing steps;
determining that usage of the enumeration value within the first query
processing step is semantically equivalent to usage of the column cell value
within the first query processing step; and
executing the first query processing step using the enumeration value
to produce a first partial result.

Appeal 2011-006528
Application 11/646,610

3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Munro, Jr. (Munro) (U.S. Patent
Application Publication Number 2005/0240392 A1; published October 27,
2005). Answer 3-7.
Claims 12, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Munro, Jr. and Eberwine (U.S. Patent Application
Publication Number 2005/0283388 A1; published December 22, 2005).
Answer 7-9.
Claims 15 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Munro, Jr. and Dorosario (U.S. Patent Application
Publication Number 2003/0078928 A1; published April 24, 2003). Answer
9-11.
Issue
Does Munro disclose a method for processing a database query by
“determining that usage of the enumeration value within the first query
processing step is semantically equivalent to usage of the column cell value
within the first query processing step” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Munro discloses that, “[o]ne of the advantages of
storing the attribute names and attribute values as numbers is that the
numbers can easily be translated to names and values in any language using
a language-specific look up table 48. (Munro at [0041]).” Reply Brief 2.

Appeal 2011-006528
Application 11/646,610

4
Appellants argue that:

The use of “language specific look-up table[s]” by
Munro teaches away from “determining that usage of the
enumeration value within the first query processing step is
semantically equivalent to usage of the column cell value
within the first query processing step,” as no
determination of semantic equivalence is made for the
relationship of the language specific look-up table to hold.

Appeal Brief 12.
In particular, Appellants argue that “‘determining’ semantic
equivalence is positively recited in the claim [1], and requires an affirmative
action.” Reply Brief 6. According to Appellants,in the Munro reference,
“the equivalence of Attribute Name ‘make’ and Attribute Name ‘hersteller’
to Attribute ID ‘50’ and to each other is implied, and no actual determination
is necessary or actually performed.” Id.
Appellants further argue that:
The Examiner’s analogy where “‘Attribute Name’ is
interpreted as ‘enumeration value’ and ‘Attribute ID’ is
interpreted as ‘column cell value’” (Examiner’s Answer,
p. 11) does not actually require a determination that
usage of the Attribute Name (e.g., “make” or “hersteller”)
is semantically equivalent to usage of the Attribute ID
(e.g., “50”). They are equivalent (Appellants do not
acquiesce to semantic equivalence) only because table 80
of FIG. 4 in Munro states they are, and not because of any
actual “determining” step. Nor would there be any
determination of semantic equivalence across tables such
as between, e.g., “hersteller” and “make”, as the
translation would only rely on the associations provided
by tables 80 and 82 of FIG. 4 in Munro.

Reply Brief 6.
Appeal 2011-006528
Application 11/646,610

5
However, the Examiner finds:
Munro, JR. et al. teaches each of language-specific look-up
tables maps a column of attribute names to a column of attribute IDs,
where the attribute names are expressed in the particular language of
the language-specific look-up table and the attribute IDs are expressed
as language independent symbols, such as numbers (Munro, JR. et al.,
Para. 31, lines 10-16), the attribute IDs and attribute value IDs match
the translate or converted search attributed selected by the potential
buyer, regardless of the language used (Munro, JR. et al., Para. 43,
lines 17-19). Wherein the different “Attribute Name” is interpreted as
Wherein the different “Attribute Name” is interpreted as “enumeration
value” and “Attribute ID” is interpreted as “column cell value”, so
that the translation operation is translating “Attribute Name” from
different language to become a single “Attribute ID” (Munro, JR. et
al., FIG. 4), so that this translation operation is determining usage of
“Attribute Name” from different language to be semantically
equivalent because the “Attribute ID” value is the same.

Answer 11-12; see Reply Brief 5.
We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings.
“It is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim
limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless inherent in
it. Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in
accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” In re
Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations
omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Munro’s translation
operation is actually determining the usage of “Attribute Name” from
different language to be semantically equivalent because the “Attribute ID”
value is the same. See Answer 11-12.
Appeal 2011-006528
Application 11/646,610

6
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s assessment that the steps
in Figure 10 of Munro are analogous to the “generating a set of query
processing steps that, when executed by one or more processors, provide a
query result to the query” limitation recited in claim 1 is incorrect. Appeal
Brief 13-14.
Appellants contend:
The term “query” has plain meaning in the art, and as
noted earlier in claim 1 refers to a “database query”. In
Munro, step 166 is not a database query, but is simply an
interface output operation. Likewise, step 168 of Munro is
an interface input operation in order to receive an attribute
value selection from a user. Nor is the entire operation 164
of FIG. 10 a “database query” as would be understood by
one skilled in the relevant art.

Appeal Brief 14.
Munro’s Figure 10, reproduced below:

Appeal 2011-006528
Application 11/646,610

7
Munro’s Figure 10 discloses a flowchart of the operations that
performs a language independent search wherein the user is presented with
one or more search attributes associated with a particular category or sub-
category that the user wants to search. See Munro, paragraph [0047].

The Examiner finds:
FIG. 10 of Munro, JR. et al. directs a step by step
block diagram to complete a user query to database and it
clearly identify “database search” in block 172. The
Examiner interprets four steps in FIG. 10 as a single query
to retrieve data from database and 166 is the first step of
this query, so that 166 is the first step of query processing
so that it clear teaches “generating a set of query
processing steps”, because claim limitation is one query
with multiple steps to be executed to retrieve a query
result. Therefore the reference teaches [the] claim
limitation.

Answer 12-13.
We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of Munro’s Figure 10. In
spite of Appellants’ labeling Munro’s individual steps 166 and 168 as
merely “interface input operation[s]” we find Munro’s Figure 10 [and
supporting paragraph [0047]] discloses “generating a set of query processing
steps that, when executed by one or more processors, provide a query result
to the query,” within the meaning of claim 1. See Appeal Brief 14.
Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims
1, 6, and 11 for the reasons stated above, as well as dependent claims 4, 5, 9,
10, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 21-23 not separately argued.
Appellants argue that obvious rejection of claims 12, 16, and 20 over
Munro and Eberwine is improper because Eberwine did not address the
Appeal 2011-006528
Application 11/646,610

8
deficiencies of Munro. Appeal Brief 15-16. However we do not find
Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because we did not find Munro to be
deficient. Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 12, 16, and 20 for the reasons stated above.
As for claim 15, Appellants further argue that the combination of
Munro and Dorosario does not teach “determining that usage of the
enumeration value within a second query processing step of the set of query
processing steps is not semantically equivalent to usage of the column cell
value within the second query processing step” limitation as recited in the
claim. Appeal Brief 17. In particular, Appellants contend that Dorosario’s
characterization of a search phrase using an open directory would not be
combinable with Munro because one skilled in the art would be unable to
produce the “Examiner’s intended teaching or suggestion.” Id. Appellants
further contend that the Examiner’s proposed modifications would render
the references unsatisfactory for their intended purpose. Id.
However, the Examiner finds that Munro discloses the “determining
usage of the enumeration value” and “generating a set of query processing
steps” limitations recited in claim 1. Answer 15. The Examiner surmises
the Dorosario reference discloses a lookup table that maps each low level
subtopic to a specified category (Dorosario, paragraph [0051]) “wherein the
mapping feature will translate the different ‘low level subtopic’ into [a]
different ‘predefined category’, so that Dorosario et al. teaches the scenario
of ‘not equivalent.’” Answer 15. Accordingly, the Examiner finds Munro
and Dorosario disclose the claim limitation recited in claim 15 because “both
[references] disclose [a] lookup table to be used to translate a value to
another value.” Id.
Appeal 2011-006528
Application 11/646,610

9
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. We do not find Appellants’
arguments (See Appeal Brief 17) that the Examiner’s proposed
modifications render the references unsatisfactory for their intended use to
be persuasive. It is not necessary for the invention of Dorosario to be
physically infused into the invention of Munro in order for the references to
be combinable. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)(“The test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” (Emphasis
added) (citations omitted)). The Examiner has provided reasoning for
combining the references (to enhance Munro’s document ranking accuracy)
that supports his conclusion that the limitation recited in claim 15 would be
obvious in view of the combined references. Answer 10; see KSR Int’l., Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 15 and 19 for the reasons stated above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 13, 14,
17, 18, and 21-23 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 12, 15, 16, 19 and
20 are affirmed.
Appeal 2011-006528
Application 11/646,610

10
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

kis