Phibbs, Paul H. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 17, 2020

12351501 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2020)

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.
12/351,501 01/09/2009 Paul H. Phibbs 20126 (2704.015US1) 8911
26890 7590 01/17/2020
JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA US, INC.
P.O. Box 190
Englewood, OH 45322
EXAMINER
MINA, FATIMA P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2020 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):
james.stover@teradata.com
michelle.boldman@teradata.com
td.uspto@outlook.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL H. PHIBBS, MARIANNE RUEGSEGGER, and
LINETTE DRAPER
Appeal 2019-001135
Application 12/351,501
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 11–14, which are all of
the pending claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Teradata US, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001135
Application 12/351,501

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, and by way of background, enterprises
typically track “all aspects of their business electronically,” with transaction
and customer data stored in databases. Spec. ¶ 2. Enterprises typically
“develop reports and real-time statistics from their databases,” in which they
use a “Structured Query Language (SQL)” that may include a variety of
nested rules. Id. ¶ 3. A “rule,” according to Appellant’s Specification, “is a
conditional comparison identified in a statement, such as If X then Y or
When X do Y, and the like.” Id. ¶ 14. Appellant’s Specification states that
“users are generally not permitted to have multiple rule evaluations as a
source or a driver to other portions of SQL statements,” so “improved
techniques for using database rule results are needed.” Id. ¶¶ 4–5.
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method implemented in a computer-readable storage
medium and processed by a processor to perform the method,
comprising:
receiving Structured Query Language (SQL) statements,
each statement is a set of operations processed by an
Application Programming Interface (API) of a database;
identifying a first rule and a second rule in the SQL
statements before the SQL statements are processed, results for
the first and second rules are combined and used as a source for
other portions of the SQL statements, the first and second rules
are referenced, via an Application Programming Interface, by
names embedded within the SQL statements using labels, and
wherein the rules are user-defined, identifying includes parsing
the SQL statements to identify the first rule as including other
nested first rules, and identifying further includes parsing the
SQL statements to identify the second rule as including other
nested second rules; and
Appeal 2019-001135
Application 12/351,501

3
evaluating the first rule and the second rule against the
database and providing the results to other portions of the SQL
statement for processing when the SQL statements are
processed; and
wherein said first and second rules, said nested first rules,
and said nested second rules are conditional comparisons.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name2 Reference Date
Chow
Polo
US 5,875,334
US 6,785,668 B1
Feb. 23, 1999
Aug. 31, 2004
Ringrose US 2006/0041458 A1 Feb. 23, 2006

REJECTION3
Claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 11–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Chow, Polo, and Ringrose.

2 All references are cited using the first-named inventor.
3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the
present application was filed before March 16, 2013, the Examiner applies
the pre-AIA version of the statutory basis for unpatentability. See Final Act.
3 (applying “pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. [§] 103(a)”).
Appeal 2019-001135
Application 12/351,501

4
OPINION
We have considered Appellant’s arguments and contentions (Appeal
Br. 5–7; Reply Br. 2–5)4 in light of the Examiner’s findings and
explanations (Final Act. 5–7; Ans. 3–5). For the reasons set forth below, we
are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of the pending claims,
and we, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 11–14 are all rejected under the same ground of
rejection. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues the patentability of all claims
together with independent claims 1 and 8, which Appellant argues
collectively. See Appeal Br. 5–7; Reply Br. 2–5. We select claim 1 as the
representative claim, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 2, 6–8, and 11–14 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds Chow teaches the limitations of “receiving
Structured Query Language (SQL) statements . . . each statement is a set of
operations processed by an Application Programming Interface (API) of a
database,” “identifying a first rule and a second rule in the SQL statements
before the SQL statements are processed,” “and wherein the rules are user-
defined,” and “evaluating the first rule and the second rule against the
database.” Final Act. 3 (citing Chow 1:50–55, 1:60–65, 2:50–65, 3:35–40,
Figs. 2–6, 24) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds Chow does not
explicitly teach “results for the first and second rules are combined and used
as a source for other portions of the SQL statements, the first and second
rules are referenced, by names embedded within the SQL statements using

4 Only those arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellant did not make are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-001135
Application 12/351,501

5
labels,” for which the Examiner relies on Polo. Id. at 3–5 (citing Polo 4:50–
56, 5:3–5, 6:9–16, 8:60–65, 9:55–57) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner
also finds Chow and Polo “do not explicitly teach” the steps of “identifying
includes parsing the SQL statements to identify the first rule as including
other nested first rules,” “identifying further includes parsing the SQL
statements to identify the second rule as including other nested second
rules,” and “wherein said first and second rules, said nested first rules, and
said nested second rules are conditional comparisons,” for which the
Examiner relies on Ringrose. Id. at 5 (citing Ringrose ¶¶ 52, 100, Fig. 2B)
(emphasis omitted).
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings regarding the
teachings of Chow or Polo, but focuses on challenging the Examiner’s
findings regarding the teachings of Ringrose. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant
describes Ringrose as follows:
Ringrose describes a system for creating and editing
scenarios for use with resource-allocation systems. The system
provides for the organization of business rules into rule groups,
exemplified by elements 114 in Figure 1. As explained in
paragraph [0039] of Ringrose, “Rules of any type may be
organized within the database into rule groups. A rule group
may contain individual rules and/or other rule groups. Rule
groups may include a collection of rules that have something in
common that is a useful organization unit.” This grouping of
rules within the limited resources of the scenario-management/
resource-allocation system of circa 2005 described in Ringrose
provides for the manipulation of a plurality of rules in a set that
can be conveniently activated or deactivated together, and
facilitates the selection of rules for scenarios.
Id.
Appeal 2019-001135
Application 12/351,501

6
Although Appellant acknowledges that Ringrose teaches rules
organized into rule groups, Appellant then argues as follows:
The rule groups described in Ringrose are not rules, they
are not SQL statements, and they are not rules contained within
SQL statements, as recited in independent claims 1 and 8 of the
present application. And the rules contained within the rule
groups described in Ringrose are not nested rules within a rule
contained within a SQL statement.
Id.
In response, the Examiner clarifies that Ringrose does teach rules,
noting Ringrose teaches “multiple rule groups such as each group contains
multiple other rules.” Ans. 3 (citing Ringrose ¶¶ 87, 88, 100, Figs. 2A, 2B).
The Examiner further finds that, in Ringrose, “[e]ach rule group’s members
may include individual rules and/or other rule groups,” and “the rules are
nested within each other and each there are multiple rule groups which are
considered as first rule and second rule.” Id. (citing Ringrose ¶ 100). The
Examiner further finds Ringrose discloses that “[e]ach rule in the database
may be uniquely identified by a rule ID.” Id. at 4 (citing Ringrose ¶ 96).
As for Appellant’s argument that Ringrose fails to disclose “SQL
statements,” the Examiner finds “Ringrose also teaches in paragraph [0118],
‘database can be understood to include one or more memory associations,
where such references can include commercially available database products
(e.g., SQL, Informix, Oracle) and also proprietary databases.’” Id. The
Examiner further points out that the findings in the Final Rejection regarding
SQL statements are also premised on the teachings of Polo and Chow, both
of which teach SQL statements with rules and parsing such statements to
identify rules. Id. (citing Polo 3:5–10, 3:40–45, 9:40–45; Chow 10:55–65
and Figs. 2, 3, 4).
Appeal 2019-001135
Application 12/351,501

7
In Reply, Appellant essentially repeats conclusory statements from the
Appeal Brief, stating “[t]he scenarios described in Ringrose are not rules,
and the rule groups described in Ringrose are not rules. The scenarios and
the rule groups discussed Ringrose are not SQL statements, nor are they
rules contained within SQL statements, as recited in independent claims 1
and 8 of the present application.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant also echoes
arguments made in the Appeal Brief by stating “[n]either the scenarios, rule
groups, nor the rules contained within the rule groups described in Ringrose
are nested rules within a rule contained within a SQL statement.” Id.
Appellant does not substantively address the Examiner’s findings. In
particular, with regard to the Examiner’s clarification in the Answer
regarding Ringrose’s teachings of individual rules within rule groups,
identifying rules in a database by a rule ID, and of an SQL environment,
Appellant quotes those statements, but then simply states that those
teachings of Ringrose do not “provide[] any teaching or suggestion” of the
disputed limitations of claims 1 and 8. Id.
Appellant’s conclusory assertions that Ringrose does not disclose
rules, SQL statements, or nested rules, despite the Examiner’s findings to the
contrary, amount to unsupported attorney argument, which is entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In a nutshell, Appellant’s
contentions amount to no more than terse statements of what Ringrose
purportedly discloses, followed by a conclusory statement that those
disclosures do not teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Appeal Br. 6;
Reply Br. 4. Such conclusory attorney assertions have little or no value in
identifying the Examiner’s alleged error, and, consequently, have little
Appeal 2019-001135
Application 12/351,501

8
persuasive value. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement [that] merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Without sufficient reasoned explanation of why the Examiner’s
findings are contrary to the cited disclosures, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error in the rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Chow, Polo, and Ringrose, along with the rejection of claims
2, 6–8, 11–14, argued collectively with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 11–14 is
affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6–8,
11–14
103(a) Chow, Polo, Ringrose 1, 2, 6–8,
11–14

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED