Ex Parte 6877006 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2016

95000698 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2016)

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.
95/000,698 09/14/2012 6877006 6702-00200 3979
35690 7590 03/25/2016
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
EXAMINER
DESAI, RACHNA SINGH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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
________________

MICROSTRATEGY INC.
Requester

v.

VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant

________________

Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1
Technology Center 3900
________________

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Patent Owner appeals the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and
2. PO App. Br. 3. Claim 3 is not subject to reexamination. RAN 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315 (pre-AIA).
Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

2
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Microsoft Office 97 Help (a printed copy of Microsoft Office 97 On-Line
Help for the applications Microsoft Access 97 and Microsoft Excel 97 stored
in the files ACMAIN80.HLP and XLMAIN8.HLP). RAN 4, ACP 10
(incorporating by reference Request 14–15 and Request, Exhibit I 1–20).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Malloy (US 5,905,985; issued May 18, 1999). RAN 4, ACP 10
(incorporating by reference Request 16–17 and Request, Exhibit J 1–13).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Bogrett (US 6,842,758 B1; issued Jan. 11, 2005) and Malloy. RAN 4, ACP
10 (incorporating by reference Request 18–20 and Request, Exhibit K 1–18).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the Collection of Platinum References (Erik Thomsen, OLAP Solutions:
Building Multidimensional Information Systems, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1997; PLATINUM Technology announces availability of lnfoBeacon 3.1, an
on-line analytical processing product; performance, functionality,
scalability and open architecture of new release represents rule change in
Enterprise OLAP market, Business Wire, June 3, 1996; InfoBeacon Delivers
Complete OLAP Solution to CPI, Data Management Review, October 1997;
PLATINUM InfoBeacon Administrator Guide, Version 4.0.3, Platinum
technology, inc., August 1998). RAN 4, ACP 11 (incorporating by reference
Request 21–22 and Request, Exhibit L 1–18).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request by MicroStrategy Inc. for an
inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent 6,877,006 B1, entitled
“Multimedia Inspection Database System (MIDAS) for Dynamic Run-Time
Data Evaluation” (the ’006 patent). Patent Owner and Requester both note
related appeals and related litigations. See PO App. Br. 3; see also 3PR
Resp. Br. 4. We have already affirmed the Examiner in Reexamination
Control 95/000,697 (Decision on Appeal in Appeal 2015-004352),
Reexamination Control 95/000,699 (Decision on Appeal in Appeal
2015-004508), and Reexamination Control 95/000,700 (Decision on Appeal
in Appeal 2015-006431). The ’006 patent “relates to inspection information
systems for evaluating structures that provide data query and update
capabilities.” Col. 1, ll. 12–14. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced
below:
1. A method executed by a programmable apparatus,
comprising:
a. receiving with a computer a data retrieval request
from a graphical user interface (GUI) on a programmable user
display device,
b. in response to the retrieval request, accessing with a
computer a plurality of disparate digital databases and
retrieving with a computer requested data from such databases,
c. assembling with a computer an OLAP [(Online
Analytical Processing)] cube of the retrieved data, wherein the
OLAP cube is assembled dynamically on demand without
accessing a multidimensional database of stored retrieved data,
d. displaying the OLAP cube to the user using the GUI,
e. accepting through the GUI a user update of specific
data displayed from the assembled OLAP cube,
Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

4
f. accessing a database relevant to the specific data of the
user update, and updating that database dynamically on demand
with the specific data of the user update, and
g. dynamically updating the assembled OLAP cube on
demand with the specific data update.

ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1 AND 2 OVER BOGRETT AND
MALLOY
The Examiner finds Bogrett and Malloy teach all limitations of claim
1. RAN 4 (incorporating the January 24, 2014 ACP), ACP 10 (incorporating
by reference Request 18–20 and Request, Exhibit K 1–18).
Patent Owner presents the following principal arguments:
i. Under the correct construction, the recited disparate databases
in claim 1 must be incompatible, and must exist concurrently in order to be
accessed. See PO App. Br. 19–20 (citing Declaration of Latifur R. Khan
¶ 19); see also PO App. Br. 19–20 (“claim 1 requires that multiple ones of
the ‘disparate digital databases’ are accessed in response to a single logical
request (‘the retrieval request’) during the course of assembling an OLAP
cube”); and PO Reb. Br. 10–11. Patent Owner cites to evidence of record,
which states: “One of ordinary skill in database technology would recognize
that ‘disparate databases’ must be more than merely distinct; they must
be incompatible, for example with respect to the DBMS [(Database
Management System)] or database schema they implement.” PO App. Br.,
Evidence Appendix, Khan Decl. ¶ 19.
ii. Bogrett’s databases 20 are not the disparate databases as
recited. See PO App. Br. 28–30 (citing Declaration of Latifur R. Khan
Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

5
¶ 21); see also PO Reb. Br. 15–16. Patent Owner cites to evidence of
record, which states: “JDBC [(Java database connection)] and ODBC
[(object database connection)] are connection protocols that may be used to
communicate with a database; they have nothing at all to do with how data is
stored in the database.” PO App. Br., Evidence App’x, Khan Decl. ¶ 21
(footnote omitted). “Bogrett neither discloses nor suggests that
multiple incompatible databases exist concurrently, and are accessed in
response to a single retrieval request during the course of assembling an
OLAP cube, as claimed.” PO App. Br. 29.
“Bogrett’s entire discussion of ‘predefined query models’
demonstrates that a given query model is specific to a single particular
database 20.” PO App. Br. 29. “Bogrett’s system provides multiple
‘generators’ to anticipate that customers may implement databases 20 using
any one of several DBMSes, and multiple ‘predefined query models’ to
assist users in querying a particular database 20.” PO App. Br. 29–30.
iii. Bogrett’s multidimensional data model 100 does not provide
online analytical processing because this processing is provided by Bogrett’s
pivot viewer 136. PO App. Br. 30–31; see also PO Reb. Br. 16.
iv. Bogrett’s multidimensional data model 100 is created by
accessing a multidimensional database of stored retrieved data. See PO App.
Br. 31; see also PO Reb. Br. 17.
v. Bogrett’s pivot viewer 136 accesses a multidimensional
database of stored retrieved data. See PO App. Br. 30–31 (citing Declaration
of Latifur R. Khan ¶ 21.1). Patent Owner cites to evidence of record, which
states: “to the extent Bogrett discloses assembling an OLAP cube, Bogrett
Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

6
only does so using a previously stored ‘multidimensional database of stored
retrieved data.’” PO App. Br., Evidence App’x, Khan Decl. ¶ 21.1.
vi. “While Malloy mentions ‘update operations’ that may be
performed by DB2 server 116, see id. 5:59–64, Malloy does not explain how
these update operations relate to either user-provided input or an OLAP
cube” (see claim 1, clause (e)). PO App. Br. 23. In particular, Patent Owner
cites to evidence of record, which states:
Although Malloy describes navigating and selecting data within
a data cube (e.g., 6:47–48; 7:12–14), Malloy fails to disclose
that an individual data item within the cube can be modified by
a user, or that such a modified data item can be updated within
a source database. Malloy only mentions “updating” in the
context of operations performed by database server 116. But
such updates do not inherently require user interaction; for
example, a database server in an OLAP system may perform
aggregations or calculations on stored data and store the results
without any involvement on the part of a user.
PO App. Br. Evidence App’x, Khan Decl. ¶ 20; see also PO App. Br. 23–26.
vii. “Malloy fails to explain what ‘multi-user read and write access’
entails, nor how the various database operations performed by DB2 server
116 relate to any user operations at all—much less user updates to data in an
OLAP cube” (see claim 1, clause (f)). PO App. Br. 26; see also PO App. Br.
Evidence App’x, Khan Decl. ¶ 20.
viii. Bogrett does not disclose the recited dynamically updating the
assembled OLAP cube on demand with the specific data update. See PO
App. Br. 32–33.
Per the claim, “the specific data update” refers to the update that
was accepted from a user (i.e., “a user update of specific data
displayed from the assembled OLAP cube”[).] Bogrett’s refresh
Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

7
of views 60 with data “from the database 20” is not equivalent to
the claimed user update of displayed data.
PO App. Br. 33.
Regarding Patent Owner’s arguments (i) and (ii), we see no error in
the Examiner’s findings. We agree with the Examiner that Bogrett’s
databases 20 reasonably are described as the recited disparate databases of
claim 1. See ACP 60 (citing Bogrett, col. 3, ll. 57–67; col. 6, ll. 20–56; and
col. 11, ll. 10–39).
Bogrett (col. 3, ll. 64–67) discloses: “[T]he databases 20 may each be
any Java database connection (JDBC) or object database connection
(ODBC) compliant database, as well [as] a suitable data warehouse or
datamart.” Bogrett (col. 6, ll. 30–34) discloses: “The dialog specific
generators correspond to the different types of databases 20 accessed by or
used in connection with the business intelligence portal 10. The dialog-
specific generators may include, for example, Oracle, Sybase, DB2, and MS
SQL generators.” Bogrett (col. 11, ll. 10–39) discloses generating a query
model that is subsequently executed. Bogrett (col. 11, ll. 59–62) elaborates
“multidimensional storage model 100 is generated based on the results. At
step 302, the multidimensional storage model 100 is used to generate pivot,
drill through, and other views as requested by the user.”
Further, nothing in the disclosure or in claim 1 precludes “a data
retrieval request” in the claim from being reasonably interpreted to include
more than one data retrieval request, as is the case with Bogrett’s query
models and database queries performed on databases 20. See Bogrett, col.
11, ll. 6–9 (“predefined query models 56 are generated and maintained on
the server 30 by an administrator and provided to users upon request and
Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

8
verification of access privileges”). Patent Owner’s Specification does not
preclude this interpretation. See ’006 patent, col. 10, ll. 26–29 (“The query
1215 is then executed and the results are displayed using the data display
defined above. Queries 1215 can also be aggregated (e.g. (Query 1) AND
(Query 2) OR (Query 3)).”).
Thus, based on the above discussion, Bogrett discloses accessing a
plurality of disparate databases (Bogrett’s databases 20, which may be
incompatible DBMSes, for example, Oracle, Sybase, DB2, and MS SQL,
and which may exist concurrently and be supported by Bogrett’s dialog
specific generators) in response to a data retrieval request composed of a
plurality of data retrieval requests (Bogrett’s requests from a user for
predefined query models), and assembling an OLAP cube (Bogrett’s
multidimensional storage model 100) of the retrieved data.
Regarding Patent Owner’s arguments (iii) and (iv), we see no error in
the Examiner’s findings. We agree with the Examiner that Bogrett’s
multidimensional data model 100 reasonably is described as the recited
OLAP cube of claim 1. ACP 61. We agree with and adopt as our own the
Examiner’s explanation:
Bogrett describes that the multidimensional storage model 100
is the OLAP cube assembled in response to the retrieval
request. See col. 11, lines 11–61 (Exhibit K, pages 4–7 of the
Request). The multidimensional model manager generates the
multidimensional storage model by fetching data records from
the source (see column 14, lines 55–57). The model uses an
open architecture to allow calculations to be dynamically
performed after the model has been constructed. As a result,
users can create new calculations to analyze data intersections
that were not anticipated during the original definition of the
models. See column 6, line[] 57–column 7, line 2.
Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

9
ACP 61.
Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument (iii), the processing provided by
Bogrett’s pivot viewer 136 corresponds to OLAP operations while
multidimensional model 100 corresponds to the OLAP cube. See Bogrett,
col. 14, l. 48–col. 15, l. 6 (discussing generation of multidimensional storage
model 100); see also Bogrett, col. 8, ll. 28–37 (discussing pivot viewer 136).
Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument (iv), multidimensional storage model
100 is generated by fetching source data records (see Bogrett, col. 14, l. 48–
col. 15, l. 6), and reasonably describes assembling the OLAP cube without
accessing a multidimensional database of stored retrieved data. The
reference to entry storage 370 (see Bogrett, col. 14, ll. 59–65) is not an
access to a multidimensional database of stored retrieved data prohibited by
the claims; rather, Bogrett is describing the generation of multidimensional
storage model 100 from the source data records.
Thus, Bogrett discloses assembling with a computer an OLAP cube
(Bogrett’s multidimensional storage model 100) of the retrieved data (data
retrieved in response to Bogrett’s requests from a user for predefined query
models), wherein the OLAP cube is assembled dynamically on demand
without accessing a multidimensional database of stored retrieved data as
recited in claim 1.
Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (v), we see no error in the
Examiner’s findings. The Examiner relies on Bogrett’s multidimensional
storage model 100 — not Bogrett’s pivot viewer 136 — to describe the
recited OLAP cube. See ACP 61.
Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

10
Regarding Patent Owner’s arguments (vi) and (vii), we see no error in
the Examiner’s findings. We agree with the Examiner that Malloy describes
the recited clauses (e) and (f) of claim 1. See Request, Exhibit K 10–15
(citing Malloy, col. 3, ll. 65–67, col. 4, ll. 4–20, and col. 5, ll. 53–64).
Malloy (Figure 1) discloses OLAP client 100. Malloy (col. 5, ll. 59–
64) discloses: “The DB2 server program 116, in turn, performs various
database operations, including search and retrieval operations, termed
queries, insert operations, update operations, and delete operations, against
one or more relational databases 118 stored on a remote or local data storage
device.” Malloy (col. 4, ll. 12–20) discloses multi-user read and write
access for OLAP.
Thus, Malloy’s OLAP client 100 and write access for OLAP discloses
the recited accepting through the GUI a user update of specific data
displayed from the assembled OLAP cube. And, thus, Malloy’s server
program performing the update operations against the one or more relational
databases discloses the recited accessing a database relevant to the specific
data of the user update, and updating that database dynamically on demand
with the specific data of the user update.
Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (vi) and (vii), Malloy supports
the Examiner’s findings. See Malloy, Fig. 1 (depicting OLAP client 100 and
OLAP client program 106); see also Malloy, col. 4, ll. 12–20 (describing
user write access for OLAP); and Malloy, col. 5, ll. 59–64 (describing
update operations against the one or more relational databases). We also
agree with and adopt as our own the further explanation provided by
Requester:
Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

11
[B]ecause the various user interactions described by Malloy
with regard to the OLAP system would be provided via the GUI
of the OLAP client program 106, Malloy describes receiving a
request to modify a portion of the displayed representation from
the GUI, and directly updating one of the databases 118
consistent with the request to modify. Moreover, to enable the
described “what-if’ing” and “updating” functionality the
displayed OLAP cube (and thus one or more of the slices that
comprise the OLAP cube) would need to be updated with the
specific data.
Resp. Br. 14; see also Malloy, col. 4, ll. 12–20, 40–45, and col. 5, ll. 53–64.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner and Requester that a skilled artisan would
have understood that the database operations performed by DB2 server 116,
and specifically the update operations to databases 118, are consistent with
the user input via the GUI of the OLAP client program 106.
Thus, Malloy’s (Figure 1) OLAP client 100 and OLAP client
program 106 and Malloy’s (col. 4, ll. 12–20) user write access for OLAP
discloses the recited accepting through the GUI a user update of specific
data displayed from the assembled OLAP cube. And thus, Malloy’s server
program performing the update operations against the one or more relational
databases (col. 5, ll. 59–64) discloses the recited “accessing a database
relevant to the specific data of the user update, and updating that database
dynamically on demand with the specific data of the user update” as recited
in claim 1.
Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (viii), we see no error in the
Examiner’s findings. We agree with the Examiner that Bogrett’s updating
of live views, when combined with Malloy, reasonably is described as the
recited dynamically updating the assembled OLAP cube on demand with the
Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

12
specific data update of claim 1. See Request, Exhibit K 15–16 (citing
Bogrett, col. 5, ll. 24–46, col. 5, l. 66–col. 6, l. 18).
Bogrett (col. 5, ll. 36–41) describes:
The views 60 may be either live views representing current data
or snapshot views of data at a particular point in time. In
addition, as described in more detail below, live views 60 may
be scheduled to be updated automatically at regular intervals,
updated when first opened, and the like.
Bogrett (col. 6, ll. 6–12) describes:
The query scheduler 72 initiates scheduled queries. As
previously discussed, any view 60, including the data and
calculations contained in the view 60, can be set to refresh from
the database 20 according to several options, including specific
time schedules. This allows views 60 to be easily refreshed to
reflect the current state of the data and users to always work
with the most up-to-date information.
Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument (viii), Bogrett updates live
views to reflect current data, and when combined with Malloy’s accepting a
user update of specific data and updating a database with the specific data
(discussed above), Bogrett’s updating of live views describes the recited
dynamically updating the assembled OLAP cube on demand with the
specific data update.
In addition, we note that in Malloy’s described operational OLAP
“what-if’ing” and updating functionality, the assembled OLAP cube would
be updated with the specific data. See Malloy, col. 4, ll. 40–45 (describing
write-access for enabling operational OLAP).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
1, as well as claim 2, which is not separately argued with particularity.

Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

13
THE REMAINING REJECTIONS
Because we have affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of all the claims,
we decline to reach the merits of the remaining rejections over the prior art.
See, e.g., In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching
rejections based on obviousness when claims already rejected as
anticipated).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 2 is affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.
In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within the time
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and
appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must
timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2015-007916
Reexamination Control 95/000,698
Patent 6,877,006 B1

14

PATENT OWNER:

MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN TX 78767-0398

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022

rvb