Kyle J. Charlet et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 29, 2019

14199581 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2019)

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.
14/199,581 03/06/2014 Kyle J. Charlet SVL920130167US1/
IBMP099
7660
63056 7590 11/29/2019
MOLLBORN PATENTS, INC.
2840 COLBY DRIVE
BOULDER, CO 80305
EXAMINER
MAHMOOD, REZWANUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2019 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):
MOLLBORN@MOLLBORN.COM
admin@mollborn.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte KYLE J. CHARLET, NATHAN D. CHURCH, KEVIN D. HITE,
and RICHARD V. TRAN
________________

Appeal 2018-008499
Application 14/199,581
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, SHARON FENICK, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CASS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 8–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal Br. 9–16. 2
Claims 1–7 have been cancelled. Id. at 18. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant lists International Business Machines
Corporation Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed December
12, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”) 1.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
June 22, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 28, 2018
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed August 28, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-008499
Application 14/199,581

2
BACKGROUND
The present invention relates to managing data conversion for user
defined data types within a database management system (DBMS). Spec.
¶ 1. The Specification explains that applications may use custom data types
(CDTs), which are defined as data types (such as a bit string with each bit
representing a pre-determined value) that cannot be expressed as a series of
built-in data types already supported by a DBMS. Id. ¶ 2. According to the
Specification, CDTs may be stored in a database as a binary data type. Id.
However, according to the Specification, it can be difficult to manage the
sharing of information and data conversion code for CDTs across an
enterprise, because CDTs require custom code (i.e., a type converter) to read
and write the data from a DBMS to the calling application. Id. ¶ 3. As a
result, it may be necessary to have type converters for the same data type in
multiple programming languages and to support various versions of the type
converter code. Id.
According to the Specification, the invention seeks to overcome this
problem by storing, within a DBMS, a custom data type definition and one
or more converters that can convert instances of the custom data type
between a binary format and a programming language format. Id. ¶¶ 6, 18.
The DBMS can receive a request by an application for a custom data type
instance in a specified programming language format. Id. ¶ 6. The DBMS
can retrieve a custom data type as well as a type converter. Id. ¶¶ 26–29,
Fig. 3. The application can then convert the binary data into a custom type
object in the specified programming language format. Id. ¶¶ 15, 17, 29, Fig.
3.
Appeal 2018-008499
Application 14/199,581

3
Claim 8 is illustrative of the claims at issue:
8. A computer program product for managing data
conversion for a custom data type in a database system, the
computer program product comprising a computer readable
storage medium having program code embodied therewith, the
program code executable by a processor, to:
store a custom data type definition and one or more
converters within a database management system, each
converter being configured to convert instances of the custom
data type between a binary format and a specific programming
language format;
receive, by the database management system, a request
from an application for a custom data type instance in a
specified programming language format;
respond to the request with:
the custom data type definition,
a converter configured to convert instances of the
custom data type between the binary format and the
requested programming language format, and
the requested custom data type instance expressed in
the binary format; and
convert, by the application, the custom data type instance
expressed in the binary format into a custom data type instance
expressed in the specified programming language format using
a read method of the converter and the custom data type
definition.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2018-008499
Application 14/199,581

4
THE EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 8–11 and 14–
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Govindarajan (US
2002/0174128 A1; published Nov. 21, 2002) in view of Block (US
2011/0282914 A1; published Nov. 17, 2011) and Back (US 7,620, 526 B2;
issued Nov. 17, 2009). The Examiner also rejected claims 12, 13, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Govindarajan in view of
Block, Back and Sezgin (US 7,539,688 B2; issued May 26, 2009).

ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 8, the Examiner relies on Govindarajan to teach,
inter alia, “stor[ing] a custom data type definition and one or more
converters within a database management system, each converter being
configured to convert instances of the custom data type between a binary
format and a specific programming language format.” Final Act. 6–7 (citing
Govindarajan ¶¶ 4, 5, 32, 36, 45, 76, 87, and 103). Specifically, the
Examiner finds that paragraph 36 of Govindarajan discloses “creating a
routine internal to the database for invoking external routines to convert
data, which is a converter routine being internally stored in a database
management system.” Ans. 4. The Examiner does not rely on any of the
other cited references for this limitation. Final Act. 8–10.
Appellant responds that “[w]hile Govindarajan may disclose user-
defined types and routines that uses such user-defined data types, and the
notion of ‘user supplied routines,’ which are considered to be equivalent to
the claimed converters by the Examiner, [Govindarajan] is completely silent
about how and where these user supplied routines are stored.” Reply Br. 2
Appeal 2018-008499
Application 14/199,581

5
(emphasis added). Appellant further contends that, even “[a]s described by
the Examiner, Govindarajan’s routine is internal to the database and it
invokes external routines which convert the data,” and “having an internal
routine that can call some external routine and have that external routine
convert data, cannot reasonably be considered equivalent to storing
converters within a database management system, as claimed.” Id. at 2–3.
We agree with Appellant. Govindarajan discloses storing data in a
“RAW” data type in a database, which is “simply a dump of bytes with no
structure” to “store the data for complex user-defined data types that have
attributes that are not easily converted to any data type supported by the
database system.” Govindarajan ¶ 32. Govindarajan also discloses
converters for converting a user-defined data type (referred to as “TYPE1”)
to a RAW data type and vice versa. Id. ¶¶ 36–48. As shown in Figure 2,
these converters (shown by “user TYPE1 to RAW conversion” and “RAW
to user TYPE1 conversion”) are contained within “APP1,” which is a set of
“user implemented routines” that “represent and manipulate data using a
complex user-defined data type (‘TYPE1’)”:
Appeal 2018-008499
Application 14/199,581

6

Figure 2 of Govindarajan illustrates routines in APP1 for converting
between user-defined data types used by an application and RAW data types
for storage in the DBMS.
More specifically, Govindarajan discloses that APP1 implements an
“external my_method routine” that is invoked by a routine internal to the
DBMS. Id. ¶¶ 36–38. This external my_method routine includes a “raw-to-
struct(a) statement” that “invokes a user-supplied routine that converts the
data item from the RAW format used by the database to store the data item
to the TYPE1 format used by APP1” and a “struct-to-raw(a)” statement that
“converts the data item from the TYPE1 structure back to the RAW format
Appeal 2018-008499
Application 14/199,581

7
used by the database.” Id. ¶¶ 38–45. Thus, Govindarajan discloses
converters external to the DBMS.
We agree with Appellant that using an external, user-supplied
converter to convert data stored in the database from one type to another, as
disclosed in Govindarajan, is different from “storing a custom data type
definition and a converter within a database management system,” as recited
in claim 8. See Reply Br. 2–3. This language in claim 8 requires that the
converter is stored within the database management system. Govindarajan
does not disclose that the converter is stored within the database
management system itself, as claim 8 requires, but instead refers to the
converter as “user-supplied” and describes their use before data is supplied
“to the routines within APP1” that require converted data. Govindarajan ¶¶
45, 47. The fact that the external converters are called indirectly by a
routine internal to the DBMS does not alter our conclusion, because the
claim requires that the “converter” be stored within the DBMS, not that code
that calls the converter is within the DBMS.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish that
Govindarajan discloses “storing a custom data type definition and a
converter within a database management system,” as recited in claim 8. The
Examiner does not rely on any of the other cited references for this
limitation. Final Act. 8–10. Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 8. We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 15, which includes similar limitations as claim 8, and
claims 9–14 and 16–20, which are dependent on claim 8 or 15.
Appeal 2018-008499
Application 14/199,581

8
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8–11, 14–18 103 Govindarajan,
Block, Back
8–11, 14–18
12, 13, 19, 20 103 Govindarajan,
Block, Back,
Sezgin
12, 13, 19,
20
Overall
Outcome
8–20

REVERSED