Ex Parte Mall

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2016

11648121 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/648, 121 12/29/2006
56056 7590 03/09/2016
BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP
C/O CPA Global
P.O. BOX 52050
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
San jeet Mall
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2006P00004US/0035-009001 1978
EXAMINER
MINCEY, JERMAINE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2016 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):
uspto@brakehughes.com
docketing@cpaglobal.com
lisa@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANJEET MALL
Appeal2014-004759
Application 11/648, 121
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-004759
Application 11/648, 121
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-7, 9-15, and 18-20. Claim 8 stands objected to as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Representative Claim
1. A method for maintaining a database stored in a computer
storage medium, the method comprising:
maintaining the database including a physical schema
comprising a plurality of tables, the tables having table
definitions including descriptions of data populating the tables,
wherein the data populating the tables is stored separately from
the table definitions and is modifiable independent of the table
definitions;
identifying a table of the database comprising non-
transactional data;
defining a storage view of at least a subset of non-
transactional data of the identified table, the storage view
comprising a storage view definition consisting of the non-
transactional data populating the storage view, wherein a
modification of the non-transactional data populating the storage
view is dependent on modifying the storage view definition;
storing the storage view in the physical schema; and
replacing the table in the physical schema of the database
with the storage view.
Colby
Freire
Avery
Prior Art
US 2002/0077997 Al
US 2006/0080313 Al
US 2006/0143210 Al
2
June 20, 2002
Apr. 13, 2006
June 29, 2006
Appeal2014-004759
Application 11/648, 121
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Avery and Freire.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Avery, Freire, and Colby.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Office Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 12-15, and 18-20
Appellant contends Avery does not teach "defining a storage view of
at least a subset of non-transactional data of the identified table, the storage
view comprising a storage view definition consisting of the non-
transactional data populating the storage view," as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 13-16. Specifically, Appellant contends Avery's database view does not
teach or suggest the claimed storage view because Avery's database view is
defined by a SELECT statement and does not store or include data, but
rather gathers data at the time views are accessed. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds Avery's database view teaches a storage view, and that
Avery's table function acts as the claimed storage view definition, selecting
a subset of data to be retrieved from database tables and identifying the data
represented by the database view. Ans. 23-24.
3
Appeal2014-004759
Application 11/648, 121
We highlight paragraph 3 5 of A very teaches the database view
presents the collection of instances as a virtual database table. Further, the
Abstract of A very teaches that whenever an application would attempt to
access an object that corresponds to the label, the application accesses the
view instead of the table, consequently, the directory data does not have to
be loaded into the table. To the extent Appellant's contentions are based on
the premise that the database views are not persistently stored, the Examiner
highlights that persistently storing the views as materialized views is within
the level of ordinary skill. Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner. We
highlight paragraph 41 of A very teaches storing a copy of the view data
separate from the sources from which the data was originally derived.
Appellant's contentions that the views of A very are not stored and do not
include data are inconsistent with the instances of the database and
materialized views taught by Avery.
Appellant further contends the table function of Avery is not a storage
view definition. App. Br. 15-16. Appellant's contention is inconsistent
with paragraph 5 of Avery, which teaches the table function includes a user-
defined table type for the database view.
Appellant argues A very fails to teach or suggest "wherein a
modification of the non-transactional data populating the storage view is
dependent on modifying the storage view definition," as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 16-18. Specifically, Appellant contends Avery's materialized view
does not include data in the definition, and changing the data associated with
the materialized view only involves re-performing query statements of an
existing definition. App. Br. 17-18. Appellant's contentions are
inconsistent with paragraph 42 of Avery, which teaches changing the
4
Appeal2014-004759
Application 11/648, 121
material views when the sources of the views are modified, which provides a
cost savings when the materialized views represent data sets that are
infrequently changed but frequently accessed.
Appellant further contends the rationale for modifying the references
is merely conclusory. App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 9-10. The Examiner relies
on Avery to teach a storage view comprising non-transactional data (Ans. 4--
6), Freire to teach data populating tables can be stored separately from the
tables (Ans. 6-7), and concludes generating storage views of Avery from the
separately stored data taught by Freire allows a user to generate views from
databases independent of the format, type, and location (Ans. 26). Appellant
has not provided persuasive evidence to show creating storage views taught
by Avery using data from the separately stored data of Freire does anything
more than yield the predictable result of producing storage views from
databases independent of format, type, and location. KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner's conclusion that the combination of Avery and Freire renders
claim 1 unpatentable.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Appellant does not present arguments for separate
patentability of claims 2-7, 9, and 18-20, which fall with claims 1 and 18.
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
commensurate claim 12 or dependent claims 13-15, which fall with claim
12.
5
Appeal2014-004759
Application 11/648, 121
Section j 03 rejection of claims j 0 and j j
Appellant contends Colby's database table does not teach the claimed
storage view, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 23. However, the Examiner
does not rely upon Colby to teach the claimed storage view, and instead
relies upon Avery as discussed with respect to claim 1. Specifically, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that Avery's database view teaches a
storage view, and that Avery's table function acts as a storage view
definition, selecting a subset of data to be retrieved from database tables and
identifying the data represented by the database view. See Ans. 23-24. We
find Avery teaches data presented in a database view. See Avery i-f 35
("[t]he database view ... presents the collection of ... instances as a virtual
database table that can be queried by database server"). Furthermore, we
agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion that the combination of
Avery, Freire, and Colby renders claim 10 unpatentable. See Ans. 21-22.
Appellant further contends A very and Colby do not teach or suggest
"removing the table from the database," as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 23.
The Examiner finds A very teaches a database view essentially replaces the
database table. Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner. We highlight
paragraph 31 of A very teaches a database view labeled the same as a
database table and presenting table function results as a virtual database
table, replacing the database table. Appellant has not persuasively
distinguished removing the database table as claimed from replacing the
database table as taught by Avery.
Appellant contends that removing the Table used to create the new
(aggregate) table likely would result in database malfunction upon inserting
new data into one of these tables. See App. Br. 23. Appellant's contention
6
Appeal2014-004759
Application 11/648, 121
is unsupported by evidence. Attorney argument is not evidence. In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can such argument take
the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d
775, 782 (CCPA 1977).
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability for
claim 11. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 9-15, and 18-20 are
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)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7