Ex Parte Renton et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201411402702 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOSEPH J. RENTON, ERIC M. HICKS, WILLIAM M. ISLEY, and STEVEN S. HAWKINS ____________________ Appeal 2012-003438 Application 11/402,702 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1– 9 and 16–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a data warehousing system for acquiring, storing, processing and presenting data accumulated through an in-flight aircraft server. Appeal 2012-003438 Application 11/402,702 2 Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An aircraft data warehousing system for analyzing data accumulated in-flight comprising: a data warehouse facility configured to service different subscribing airline companies, the warehouse facility including: a common meta-database that stores airline company user information across different airline companies subscribing to the facility, including user authorization from different airlines and airline company defined datamart schema, pertaining to a plurality of different airline company users of the data warehousing system; a plurality of separate datamarts each storing in- flight aircraft data comprising passenger usage data from an in-flight entertainment system accumulated in-flight from an individual airline company's aircraft flights, the aircraft data stored according to the individual subscribing airline company's defined datamart schema stored in the meta-database, and a data extractor that extracts, parses and formats the in-flight passenger usage data from at least one of the plurality of datamarts based on at least one of the airline company's defined datamart schema; a web server that acquires the in-flight passenger usage data, the airline company user information, and the airline company's defined datamart schema to be stored in the data warehouse; and wherein the web server provides a web based interface configured to allow the plurality of different subscribing airline company users to edit their own airline company user information and to define their own datamart schemas utilized to extract and to present the in-flight passenger usage data as a statistical report. Appeal 2012-003438 Application 11/402,702 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–9 and 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as unpatentable over Weinberger1 in view of Mitchell.2 ISSUES A. Whether Weinberger’s airline configuration system teaches creating datamarts using different airline defined schemas. B. Whether Weinberger’s storing global attributes in a database teaches storing data across multiple airlines in a meta-database. C. Whether the combination of Weinberger and Mitchell teaches away from the claimed invention. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, and address the Examiner’s rejections as follows. A. Whether Weinberger’s airline configuration system teaches creating datamarts using different airline defined schemas. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Weinberger teaches creating a plurality of datamarts, each using different airline defined datamart schemas. App. Br. 5–6. The Examiner finds Weinberger teaches or suggests creating and using such datamarts in column 102, lines 32–35. Ans. 7, 14. We agree with the Examiner. Weinberger discloses an “airplane configuration system [that] includes the seating configuration, audio and video arrangement and other information concerning the layout of a particular airplane.” Weinberger 1 US 6,813,777 B1 issued Nov. 2, 2004 2 US 6,741,841 B1 issued May 25, 2004 Appeal 2012-003438 Application 11/402,702 4 102:21–23. Weinberger further discloses the configuration system has a modular concept that “allows for a wide variety of configurations. This allows individual airlines to choose configurations most suited to their individual needs and budgets.” Id. at 102:32–35 (emphasis added). It is this latter passage of Weinberger that the Examiner finds teaches a plurality of datamarts, each using different airline defined datamart schemas. Ans. 7, 14. Appellants disagree, and argue this passage merely discloses an airline may brand Weinberger’s entertainment system to that airline. App. Br. 5–6. Appellants further argue, regardless of the configuration, Weinberger teaches using only a single database schema as shown in Figure 39. Id. at 6. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Weinberger discloses an “in-flight entertainment system 100 [that] operates in three possible states,” including a configuration state in which “aircraft-installation-unique parameters are initialized and modified.” Weinberger 36:14–19. The system 100 allows users to run an “SQL object manager for viewing customer specific database parameters.” Id. at 49:56– 65 (emphasis added). To configure the system, Weinberger discloses “an airplane configuration functional database tool, referred to as an ACS tool.” Id. at 86:64–67 (emphasis added). The ACS tool “provides a means of telling the entertainment/service system about aircraft layout and the configuration of cabin entertainment and passenger services. . . . via downloadable data files.” Id. at 87:3–8. These downloadable data files, also referred to as configuration files, are loaded into an aircraft’s cabin file server database to “provide information about the aircraft 111 so that interactive services can be provided to the passengers.” Id. at 88:27–28; 89:8–14. Among other functions, the configuration files “define[] what TES [total entertainment system] devices are installed on the aircraft, where those Appeal 2012-003438 Application 11/402,702 5 devices are located and what functions those devices perform.” Id. at 88:4– 6. “The ACS tool provides the capability to define aircraft configuration information,” and allows a user to specify, in an “Airline” field of a database table, “[t]he name of the airline for which the specified configuration is valid.” Id. at 89:48–61 (emphasis added). “The ACS tool [also] provides the capability to define system configuration information. The user may identify what units are installed in a particular configuration, what entertainment options are available, and what version of the cabin file server database 493 is to be used on [a] particular aircraft 111.” Id. at 91:22–27 (emphasis added). In view of the foregoing, we find Weinberger discloses a plurality of database versions, where each database version is configured by a different configuration file; and where each configuration file specifies a particular airline for which its corresponding database version is valid and how that airline configures its aircraft’s entertainment systems, including the types of devices installed and the functionality of those devices. Since different devices can have different data storage requirements, we find Weinberger’s use of different configuration files teaches or suggests different airlines can have different database schemas. Thus, we find Weinberger teaches or suggests a plurality of datamarts (database versions) made using a plurality of different airline defined datamart schemas (configuration files) as recited in Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 16. As to Appellants’ argument that Weinberger discloses a single database schema in Figure 39, we note that Weinberger describes Figure 39 as “an exemplary cabin file server database structure,” not as the only cabin file database structure. Weinberger 6:53–54. Moreover, Weinberger discloses “[i]n order to install a new database for a customer [airline], Appeal 2012-003438 Application 11/402,702 6 CREATEDB.EXE is the main C++ executable file used to create the database.” Id. at 220:46–48. Weinberger further discloses using an INITDB.EXE executable that relies on “Comma separated variable file(s) 757 (.CSV files) and/or SQL script file(s) 757 (.SQL files) to create and populate the database structure.” Id. at 220:66–221:6. These passages also teach or suggest the database schema shown in Figure 39 is an exemplary schema, and not the only possible schema. In view of the foregoing, we find the Examiner did not err in relying on Weinberger’s disclosure in column 102, lines 32–35, that “individual airlines [can] choose configurations most suited to their individual needs and budgets,” teaches or suggests creating a plurality of datamarts using different airline defined datamart schemas as recited in Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 16. B. Whether Weinberger’s storing global attributes in a database teaches storing data across multiple airlines in a meta-database. Appellants also contend Weinberger is directed to single aircraft systems, and lacks any reference to a common meta-database storing data across different airline companies. App. Br. 5. The Examiner finds Weinberger teaches or suggests a meta-database storing data across different subscribing airlines in the passage at column 208, lines 50–60, which discloses that “the cabin file server database 493 provides storage for global attribute information” in various tables, including in an “Airline” table. Ans. 6, 13. We agree with the Examiner. Weinberger discloses that the data for Weinberger’s in-flight entertainment (IFE) system is “configurable in order to tailor the IFE functionality for a particular airline.” Weinberger 209:22–23. The Appeal 2012-003438 Application 11/402,702 7 configuration data includes the global “Airline” table relied on by the Examiner as well as a “DB_Version” table. Id. at 209:25–26; 210:47–48. We find the combination of the global “Airline” and “DB_Version” tables, which allow different airlines to be associated with different database versions that are valid for those airlines, teaches or suggests storing meta- data for multiple airlines in a single meta-database. In view of the above, we find the Examiner did not err in finding Weinberger’s disclosure of storing global attribute information in an “Airline” table teaches or suggests a meta-database storing data across multiple airlines as recited in Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 16. C. Whether the combination of Weinberg and Mitchell teaches away from the claimed invention. Lastly, Appellants contend the combination of Weinberger and Mitchell teaches away from or counter to the claimed combination and, at best, would: [R]esult in allowing airlines to brand a database system for their own aircraft while the underlying databases across airline companies would likely utilize the same schema. The airlines would then access a single common data warehouse shared among the airlines. Such an approach is counter [to] the claims where each airline has their own self-defined schema and their own datamart distinct from others within a data warehouse. App. Br. 6. We are not persuaded because Appellants’ arguments are predicated upon Appellants’ contention that Weinberger does not teach or suggest either (a) storing data across multiple airlines in a meta-database or (b) creating a plurality of datamarts configured according to plurality of airline- defined datamart schemas. For the reasons explained above, we find App App Wein agre rend 1–9 this tj 3 Ap there over eal 2012-0 lication 11 berger tea e with the ers claim 1 A. Wein creati B. Wein sugge C. The c from D. Base erred unpat For the r and 16–19 No time appeal may pellants do fore find t Weinberg 03438 /402,702 ches or su Examiner unpatenta berger’s a ng datama berger’s s sts storing ombinatio the claime d on the re in rejectin entable ov easons exp is affirme period for be extend not separ hese claim er in view ggests the that the co ble under CON irline conf rts using d toring glob data acro n of Wein d inventio cord befor g claims 1 er Weinbe DE lained ab d. taking any ed under ately conte s are also of Mitche 8 se conteste mbination 35 U.S.C. CLUSION iguration s ifferent ai al attribut ss multipl berger and n. e us, we c –9 and 16 rger and M CISION ove, the Ex subseque 37 C.F.R. AFFIRM st claims unpatenta ll. d features of Weinb § 103(a).3 S ystem tea rline defin es in a dat e airlines i Mitchell onclude th –19 under itchell. aminer’s nt action i § 1.136(a) ED 2–9 and 1 ble under 3 , and there erger and ches or sug ed schema abase teac n a meta-d does not te e Examine 35 U.S.C rejection o n connect (1)(iv) (20 6–19, and 5 U.S.C. fore we Mitchell gests s. hes or atabase. ach away r has not §103(a) a f claims ion with 09). we § 103(a) s Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation