Ex Parte Schimpf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2015

12647965 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2015)

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.
12/647,965 12/28/2009 Brian C. Schimpf CAM920090027US1/1174-021 2911
44185 7590 12/29/2015
BAINWOOD HUANG & ASSOCIATES LLC
c/o LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE
2 Connector Road
Westborough, MA 01581
EXAMINER
TORGRIMSON, TYLER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2015 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 BRIAN C. SCHIMPF, SREEDHAR RELLA, and
VAUGHN T. ROKOSZ
____________________

Appeal 2013-010348
Application 12/647,9651
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final
Rejection of claims 1–11 and 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 12–22 are cancelled.2
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
2 App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2013-010348
Application 12/647,965

2
Invention
The claimed invention relates generally to database systems, and more
specifically, to a method and system for dynamically creating queries to find
related records in a database. Spec. 2.

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A system comprising:
at least one processor and at least one computer readable
memory, said computer readable memory having stored thereon
program code for dynamically creating queries to find related
records in a database, said program code including
program code for displaying a currently active
database record, wherein said displaying is responsive to
a user selecting said currently active database record
from a previously generated result set of database
records retrieved from said database, and wherein fields
in said currently active database record contain values
retrieved from said database,
program code for receiving indication from a user
of at least one user selected field in said currently active
database record,
program code for generating a user interface object
enabling said user to indicate a user selected relational
requirement to be applied when determining matching
records in said database, and
program code for generating a search query
requesting all records having values in said at least one
user selected field that satisfy said user selected
relational requirement with respect to said value in said
at least one user selected field in said currently active
database record.
Appeal 2013-010348
Application 12/647,965

3
Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Zigon
Crim
US 2010/0070459 A1
US 2010/0161644 A1
Mar. 18, 2010
June 24, 2010

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1–6, 11, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Crim. Final Act. 2–7.
Claims 7–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crim and Zigon. Final Act. 7–10.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants’ arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–11), and (2) the findings and
the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2–6). We concur with
the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue Crim does not teach “fields in said currently active
database record contain values retrieved from said database” and “generating
a search query requesting all records having values in said at least one user
selected field,” as recited in claims 1 and 23. Specifically, Appellants argue
Crim requires that a user must “manually enter desired values” into fields to
Appeal 2013-010348
Application 12/647,965

4
generate a search query, rather than using currently active database record
fields “populated with values . . . for purposes of generating a search query.”
App. Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 5–6. That is, Appellants argue, Crim does not
teach search query field values are provided from database record field
values. App. Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 5–6.
We are not persuaded because Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of claims 1 and 23. Those claims recite a
database record contains field values (“fields in said currently active
database record contain values retrieved from said database”) and a search
query uses field values (“a search query requesting all records having values
in said at least one user selected field”), but the claims do not recite, and
therefore do not require, using database record field values as search query
field values. Moreover, the claims do not restrict the source of search query
field values or the manner by which search query field values are obtained.
Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Crim’s browse function,
where a user views a selected database record from information stored in a
database, teaches “fields in said currently active database record contain
values retrieved from said database,” as recited by the claims. Ans. 3–5
(citing Crim ¶¶ 32–33, 35–37, Fig. 1). The Examiner also finds, and we
agree, that Crim’s search function, where a user enters values into fields to
create search queries, teaches “generating a search query requesting all
records having values in said at least one user selected field,” as recited by
the claims. Ans. 5–6 (citing Crim ¶ 51, Figs. 4a–4b). Crim’s manual entry
of field values for search queries (Crim ¶ 51, Figs. 4a–4b) is not precluded
from the scope of the claims because the claims do not restrict the manner—
automatic, manual, or otherwise—in which search query field values are
Appeal 2013-010348
Application 12/647,965

5
entered. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred and,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 23.
Appellants have not presented separate arguments with respect to
dependent claims 2–11. See App. Br. 12–13. As such, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2012).

DECISION

We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–11 and 23.
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) (2009).

AFFIRMED

gvw