Ex Parte Renton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2014

11402702 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2014)

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