Ex Parte MallDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 201611648121 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation