Ex Parte 7464087 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2014

90011985 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2014)

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.
90/011,985 10/28/2011 7464087 031354-00005 9195
24024 7590 03/04/2014
Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP
The Calfee Building
1405 East Sixth Street
Cleveland, OH 44114-1607
EXAMINER
RALIS, STEPHEN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2014 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 DATATRAK INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
1

ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

1
Judge Blankenship, who participated in the oral hearing, has recused
himself from this appeal. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b), Judge Baumeister
has been designated as a substitute to decide this appeal. Cf. In re Bose
Corp., 772 F.2d 866, 868-70 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

2

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from the final rejection
of claims 1-52. An oral hearing was held on December 4, 2013. A written
transcript of the oral hearing was entered into the record on January 28,
2014. We have jurisdiction under §§ 134(b) and 306. We affirm-in-part.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. SUMMARY
A request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,464,087 B2
(the ’087 patent) was filed on October 28, 2011 and assigned Reexamination
Control No. 90/011,985.
2
The ‘087 patent, entitled “Method and System for
Unifying Data,” issued December 9, 2008 to Marc J. Shlaes, Jochen van
Berkel, Mario Jugel, and Hermann Engel, and based on Application No.
10/628,884 (filed July 28, 2003), claims priority to provisional application
No. 60/398,841 (filed July 26, 2002). The ‘087 patent is said to be assigned
to Datatrak International, Inc., also said to be the real party in interest.
B. THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a system for unifying data for an
industry having a plurality of business context dimensions. ‘087 Patent, 2:8-

2
Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Request for Ex Parte
Reexamination filed October 28, 2011 (“Req.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed
September 6, 2012 (“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed
February 26, 2013 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed April 25, 2013
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

3

11. The system includes a plurality of data sources each including data
capable of being grouped into at least one data source specific dimension.
Id. at 2:11-13. Each data source has a physical or logical structure differing
from another data source. Id. at 13-14. The system further includes a
database having a first and a second plurality of nodes, each of the first
plurality representing an industry business context dimension, and each of
the second plurality representing a data source specific dimension. Id. at
2:15-18. A plurality of data source query function calls is made, each call
querying a single data source regarding a single data source specific
dimension. Id. at 2:19-21.
One application of the invention is for accessing different types of
data sources located in different locations relating to clinical trials for
pharmaceuticals. ‘087 Patent, 3:66-4:18. In the pharmaceuticals example,
“dimensions” include but are not limited to “sponsor,” “study,” “site” and
“patient,” each of which defines a specific logical concept within the
pharmaceuticals industry. Id. at 4:60-64.

Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

4

Figure 11 of the ‘087 Patent is reproduced below.

Figure 11 is a block diagram of the invention. ‘087 Patent, 3:36-37. Figure
11 shows a user retrieving information about a patient 123, in this instance a
“Quality of Life” query 1110. Id. at 14:31-38, 15:14-15. The query extends
across all data sources for the particular patient 123. Id. The user defines
the “Quality of Life" query as including “Patient Diary Gastric” and “Patient
Diary Pain Level” from data source Patient Diary 1140. Id. at 15:15-17.
From data source EDC Study 1142 the query includes “EDC Medication”
and from data source Patient Manager 1144 “Patient Manager History.” Id.
at 15:17-19. Each of the different data sources 1140, 1142, and 1144 has an
associated data access mechanism 1130, 1132, and 1134 respectively. Id. at
15:20-24. The user thus combines four UniViews 1120, 1122, 1124, and
1126 to create the complex query. Id. at 15:19-20. Each UniView is a
template that is created to query the data sources. Id. at 6:3-6.

Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

5

C. RELATED LITIGATION
Appellant informs us that the ’087 patent is currently the subject of a
litigation styled Datatrak Int’l, Inc. v. Medidata Solutions, Inc., Case No.1:
11-CV -00458-PAG (N.D. Ohio, March 4,2011)(“’087 Litigation”). Patent
Owner further states as of the date it filed its Appeal Brief, the '087
Litigation had been stayed pending the outcome of this Reexamination.
3

D. THE CLAIMS
Independent claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A system for unifying data relating to an industry having a plurality
of industry business context dimensions which define logical groupings of
data related to the industry, the system comprising:

one or more computer systems, comprising:

a plurality of data sources, at least two data sources having a physical
or logical structure differing from at least one other data source, each data
source having data which is capable of a logical contextual grouping into at
least one data source specific dimension which contains data related to at
least one industry business context dimension, and each data source having a
data access mechanism for facilitating querying thereof, wherein each
dimension has at least one dimension instance and each of the at least two
data sources have data relating to a dimension instance;

3
Patent Owner advises us that a divisional of the ‘087 patent, U.S. Patent
No. 8,234,294 B2 issued on July 31, 2012, and is also the subject of a
litigation styled Metadata Solutions, Inc. v. Datatrak Int’l, Inc., Case No. 2:
12-CV-04748-WJM-MF (D. N.J., July 30, 2012).
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

6

a database having a first and a second plurality of nodes, each of the
first plurality of nodes representing an industry business context dimension,
each of the second plurality of nodes representing a data source specific
dimension of at least one of the data sources, each of the first plurality of
nodes related to at least one other of the first plurality of nodes, and each of
the second plurality of nodes related to at least one of the first plurality of
nodes, wherein the database is stored in at least one of the data sources;

a plurality of data source query function calls, each query function call
querying a single data source regarding a single data source specific
dimension, and each query function call using the data access mechanism of
the single data source to facilitate access to the single data source; and

a complex query comprising a plurality of data source query function
calls, the complex query querying the at least two data sources for data
relating to the dimension instance, the complex query calling the plurality of
data source query function calls to perform the querying of the at least two
data sources for the data relating to the dimension instance, and wherein the
data relating to the dimension instance is retrieved from each of the at least
two data sources.

Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

7

E. THE REJECTIONS
Currently, claims 1-52 are pending in the application.
4
The
rejections are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11-21, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34 and 37-47 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Annevelink (Heterogenous
Database Integration in a Physicians Workstation, Proceedings of the
Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care, 368-372,
(1991)). Ans. 3.
2. Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Annevelink and Fleming. Ans. 21.
3. Claims 22, 23, 29, 30, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
in view of Annevelink and De Smedt (A Physician's Workstation as an
Application of Object- Oriented Database Technology in Healthcare,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 819, at 234-252, (1994). Ans. 26.
4. Claims 24 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) in view of
Annevelink and Black (US 6,285,998 B1, issued Sep. 4, 2001). Ans. 28.

4
The Examiner withdrew the §102(b) and §103(a) rejections of claims 6-
23, 26-32, 34, 36-48, and 49-52 based on Fleming (US 2002/0059264 A1,
published May 16, 2002). April 6, 2012 Final Rejection at 2. The Examiner
withdrew the §102(e) rejections to claims 1-5 based on Fleming. Ans. 38.
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

8

5. Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
Annevelink and MacNicol (U.S. Patent No. 6,341,281 B1, Jan. 22, 2002).
Ans. 29.
6. Claims 49 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
Annevelink, Black, and MacNicol. Ans. 30.
7. Claims 50 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
Annevelink, Black, MacNicol, and Fleming. Ans. 34.
II. ISSUES
1. Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Annevelink discloses the following limitations:
(a) “each dimension has at least one dimension instance and each of
the at least two data sources have data relating to a dimension instance”?
(b) “a database having a first and a second plurality of nodes, each of
the first plurality of nodes representing an industry business context
dimension, each of the second plurality of nodes representing a data source
specific dimension of at least one of the data sources, each of the first
plurality of nodes related to at least one other of the first plurality of nodes,
and each of the second plurality of nodes related to at least one of the first
plurality of nodes, wherein the database is stored in at least one of the data
sources”?
(c) “a complex query comprising a plurality of data source query
function calls, the complex query querying the at least two data sources for
data relating to the dimension instance, the complex query calling the
plurality of data source query function calls to perform the querying of the at
least two data sources for the data relating to the dimension instance, and
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

9

wherein the data relating to the dimension instance is retrieved from each of
the at least two data sources”?
2. Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 by
finding that Annevelink discloses “a first plurality of nodes storing
information defining a corresponding plurality of business context
dimensions for the industry, the first plurality of nodes being interconnected
in a manner that represents relationships between the corresponding business
context dimensions”?
III. ANALYSIS
A. Rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)-Annevelink

Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part: “each dimension has at least one
dimension instance and each of the at least two data sources have data
relating to a dimension instance.” (emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on Annevelink to meet the limitation. Ans. 4
(citing Annevelink, 368, Req. 101). Specifically, the Examiner points to
patient information of Annevelink as a “dimension instance” stored in two
data bases, Distributed Hospital Computer Program (DHCP) and Physician
Workstation (PWS). Id. Further, Annevelink shows access to data stored in
multiple external data bases. Id. (citing Annevelink, Fig. 2).
Appellant disputes that Annevelink shows patient data in both the
DHCP and PWS data bases. App. Br. 54, 56-57. Appellant contends the
code shown in Annevelink “makes it clear that a patient is either an Iris
patient (locaIPat) or a DHCP patient (dhcpPat), having data stored in one or
the other, but not both.” Id. at 54 (citing Response to Non-Final Office
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

10

Action dated February 16, 2011, Wilke Decl. at ¶ 5). At the hearing on this
matter,
5
Appellant cited to page 371 of Annevelink, in the paragraph relating
to “function overloading,” as additional support. Tr. 5:19-6:5. According to
Appellant, overloading “indicates whether the patient is a local patient, a
localPat, or a DHCP patient, a dhcpPat, and then it accesses the data
accordingly by using the overloading function.” Id. Appellant also contends
that Annevelink discloses “supertype Patient” as an object oriented “type,”
which is not an industry context dimension as claimed. App. Br. 54.
The Examiner responded to the argument that Annevelink discloses
patient data in two or more data bases based on the Wilke Declaration by
citing the following from Annevelink:
The DHCP database provides access to patient demographics,
admission/discharge records, lab results, radiology reports, pharmacy
record, etc. The PWS database will integrate this data with data
generated during the patient-physician interactions that are not stored
in the DHCP (page 369,
6
column 1, paragraph 3).

Final Rejection, dated April 6, 2012, 44 (emphasis in original).
Further, the Examiner notes Annevelink allows DHCP objects to coexist
with locally defined objects. Ans. 41 (citing Annevelink, 371). Annevelink

5
The transcript of the December 4, 2013 hearing will be referenced “Tr.”
6
The correct page of Annevelink is 368.
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

11

thus defines a common supertype, i.e., Patient objects, to be stored in
different databases. Id.
We are not persuaded of any error by the Examiner in finding this
limitation met by Annevelink. The Declaration of Christopher Lee Wilke
(“Wilke Declaration”) is not persuasive because he is an employee of
Appellant (Wilke Dec. at ¶ 1) and he directly contradicts the language of
Annevelink cited by the Examiner:
To allow DHCP objects to coexist with locally defined objects,
we use a technique in which we define a common supertype for
two or more types whose instances are stored in different ways,
e.g. in different dalabases. For example, to allow Patient
objects, or more precisely, the attributes and relationships of
patient objects, to be stored in multiple databases, we start by
defining the supertype, say Patient. We then define subtypes of
Patient, e.g. dhcp Pat to allow Patient objects to be stored in
DHCP. We can define additional subtypes of Patient, e.g.
localPat, to allow Patient objects to be stored in the PWS
database itself.

Ans. 41 (citing Annevelink 371).
The Examiner cited this passage from Annevelink, without resort to
code, in support of the rejection. Ans. 41 (citing Annevelink 371). . The
fact that the Wilke Declaration does not address the specific non-code
language of Annevelink is a factor in our analysis. Annevelink allows
patient data to be retrieved from more than one data base. The data bases
are specifically disclosed as “integrated” in that a user can access DHCP
data as well as the PWS data. Annevelink, col. 1, 368. Further, Figure 2 of
Annevelink and the related description show the open architecture of the
PWS system. Annevelink, col. 1-2, 369, Fig. 2.
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

12

Nor are we persuaded that the supertype Patient and Appointment, the
first plurality of nodes of claim 1 discussed below, do not map to a business
industry context dimension. The Specification of the ‘087 Patent defines
“industry business context” as “a set of dimensions which define the data
pertinent to an industry.” ‘087 Patent, 5:4-5. Appellant’s denial that
supertypes Patient and Appointment do not meet the definition is not
persuasive given that both Patient and Appointment are dimensional
instances of the databases PWS and DHCP. Both of the databases are
associated with hospital patient care, which fall within an industry business
context as described in the ‘087 Patent. See Annevelink, 368.
Appellant argues Annevelink discloses an object oriented “type” in
Figure 1, and “not an industry business context dimension.” App. Br. 54.
As discussed above, Annevelink does disclose a business industry context
under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Appellant does not
persuasively argue that object-oriented programming distinguishes claim 1
from Annevelink. Tr. 18:14-24.
The second disputed limitation of claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “a
database having a first and a second plurality of nodes, each of the first
plurality of nodes representing an industry business context dimension, each
of the second plurality of nodes representing a data source specific
dimension of at least one of the data sources, each of the first plurality of
nodes related to at least one other of the first plurality of nodes, and each of
the second plurality of nodes related to at least one of the first plurality of
nodes, wherein the database is stored in at least one of the data sources.”
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

13

The Examiner relies on Annevelink Patient and Appointment base
types to map to the first plurality of nodes. Ans. 4-5, 43 (citing Annevelink,
Fig. 1, Req. 102). The Examiner finds the second plurality of nodes are
e subtypes dhcpPat, localPat, dhcpAppt and localAppt. Id. The subtypes
are, according to the Examiner, representative of data stored in the DHCP
and PWS databases. Id.
Appellant contends Annevelink’s supertypes and subtypes are not
nodes. App. Br. 54-55. Appellant argues the node structure is not shown in
Annevelink. Id. (citing Wilke Decl., ¶ 8). Appellant further contends that
the subtypes do not represent data but instead are means for accessing the
data in the databases. Id. at 55 (citing Wilke Decl. at ¶ 5). Appellant again
relies on the Wilke Declaration to argue that a patient is either a dhcpPat or a
localPat. Id.
To the extent Appellant again argues Annevelink does not have
dimension instances in more than one database, we disagree for reasons
previously stated. As to the subtypes not representing data but rather a
means for accessing data, again this argument is contrary to the language of
Annevelink. Annevelink state the objects are stored in data bases.
Annevelink, 371. As the Examiner finds, the subtypes are representative of
data and are stored in the databases of Annevelink. Ans. 46 (citing
Annevelink, 371).
The third disputed limitation of claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “ a
complex query comprising a plurality of data source query function calls, the
complex query querying the at least two data sources for data relating to the
dimension instance, the complex query calling the plurality of data source
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

14

query function calls to perform the querying of the at least two data sources
for the data relating to the dimension instance, and wherein the data relating
to the dimension instance is retrieved from each of the at least two data
sources.”
The Examiner finds this limitation, in part, in the Iris (PWS) “query
compiler and optimizer” which “decompose queries into parts that can be
sent to external database system, which can then optimize and evaluate
queries.” Ans. 5 (citing Annevelink, 372, Req. 102). The Examiner finds
the function calls would query both the local and the dhcp data sources. Id.
(citing Annevelink, 371-372, Req. 102-103).
Appellant argues Annevelink does not disclose a dimension instance
that can be the subject of a query of “at least two data sources.” App. Br.
55-56. The argument is again premised on Annevelink not storing
dimension instances in two data sources, but rather localPat or dhcpPat but
not both. Id.
The Examiner has established the third limitation is disclosed in
Annevelink. Appellant makes no additional arguments specific to claim 1.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s finding that claim 1 is not patentable as
anticipated under §102(b) by Annevelink.
B. Rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)-Annevelink
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds the following limitation, “at
least one result set object populated by data returned from a query from a
user, wherein the query from the user includes selection of at least one
dimension instance and at least one query function call without identification
by the user of which data source to query.”
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

15

The Examiner relies on the same disclosures of Annevelink above.
Ans. 47-48. Specifically, “Annevelink et al. provides evidence to such
functionality in the creation of a patient in each database (i.e. including the
nameOfPatient; see discussion on page 371, bottom paragraph of column 1 -
second to last paragraph in column 2).” Ans. 48. The Examiner finds
Annevelink thus shows a query about the patient to both the DHCP and
PWS data bases. Id.
Appellant alleges “nameOfPatient” is an internal identifier and not a
“query from a user.” App. Br. 58-59. The oid of a patient is “an internal
identifier and it would be surprising if a user actually knew the system oid of
a patient and used that patient oid as a user query input parameter.” App.
Br. 59 (citing Wilke Decl. at ¶ 11).
Appellant’s contention as supported by the Wilke Declaration is not
persuasive. The Examiner does not assert the query uses the oid
nameOfPatient, just that patient information represented by nameOfPatient
is in the two data bases. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s conclusion
that claim 2 is not patentable as anticipated under §102(b) by Annevelink.
C. Rejection of Claims 6, 8, 11-21, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, and 37-47
under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)-Annevelink

Claim 6 is an independent claim of similar scope to claim 1. In
pertinent part, claim 6 differs by requiring, among other things, “a first
plurality of nodes storing information defining a corresponding plurality of
business context dimensions for the industry, the first plurality of nodes
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

16

being interconnected in a manner that represents relationships between the
corresponding business context dimensions.” (emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on Patient and Appointment base types to map to
the first plurality of nodes. Ans. 6 (citing Annevelink, 368, Fig. 1, Req. 103-
104). The same support is used to show the first plurality of nodes “being
inter connected in a manner that represents relationships between the
corresponding business context dimensions.” Id. In the Response to
Argument section of the Answer, the Examiner finds the ‘087 Patent does
not disclose any nodal structure, but only relationships. Ans. 49. Relying
on the definition of “node,” the Examiner construes node as “a point at
which subsidiary parts originate or center.” Ans. 50. This is alleged to be
consistent with Appellant’s proposal for “node.” Id. (citing App. Br. 64-66).
The Examiner construes the term “interconnected” as being “mutually
related” or “each node being equally related.” Ans. 52. As a result, the
Examiner finds that Annevelink discloses the first plurality of nodes storing
information, i.e. name, appts; and date, patient subtypes, thus defining the
business context dimensions of Patient and Appointment. Id.
Appellant argues the claims require a hierarchical relationship
between nodes of the same level, i.e., the first plurality of nodes. Reply Br.
5. Further, Appellant contends neither Annevelink Figure 1 nor the text of
Annevelink show the Patient type is interconnected to the Appointment type.
Id. at 6.
We agree with Appellant. The broadest reasonable interpretation of
“interconnected” follows the plain and ordinary meaning of the word.
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

17

Annevelink Figure 1, reproduced below, does not disclose any connection
between the first plurality of nodes, Patient and Appointment.

Both Patient and Appointment are connected to their subtypes but not to
each other. Patient and Appointment are potentially connected through
Object or dhcpObject. As to dhcpObject, Annevelink says only:
There is also a type called dhcpObject, which is used to keep
track of the mapping from DHCP record id’s to Iris object id’s.

Annevelink, 369 (emphasis added).
Accepting the Examiner’s mapping of the supertypes Patient and
Appointment as the first plurality of nodes and subtypes localPat, dhcpPat,
dhcpAppt, and localAppt as the second plurality of nodes, the “type”
dhcpObject is of a different “type” from the first plurality of nodes, which
are the supertypes Patient and Appointment. Regardless, the Examiner does
not present such a rejection, instead relying on the interpretation of
“interconnected” as being “mutually related” or “equally related.” In view
of what Annevelink discloses, we find this interpretation is not reasonably
based.
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

18

Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
Independent claims 26 and 31 also require the first plurality of nodes to be
“interconnected” to each other and the rejections to claims 26 and 31 are
reversed. Claims 8 and 11-21 depend from claim 6. Claim 28 depends from
claim 26. Claims 32, 34, and 37-47 depend from claim 31. The rejections to
claims 8, 11-21, 28, 32, 34, and 37-47 are not sustained as they depend from
claims where we did not sustain the rejections.
D. Rejection of Claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)-Annevelink
and Fleming

Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites the further limitation that
“at least one complex query calling a plurality of query function calls to
query the plurality of data sources, wherein the one complex query does not
identify any data source to query.”
The Examiner applies Annevelink as above to claim 1. The Examiner
acknowledges the limitation of claim 3 is not taught by Annevelink. Ans.
22. The Examiner relies on Fleming to teach a “complex query calling a
plurality of query function calls to query the plurality of data sources.” Ans.
23 (citing Fleming ¶¶ 76, 78). Fleming is relied on for the next portion of
claim 3, “wherein the one complex query does not identify any data source
to query.” Id. (citing Fleming ¶¶ 76, 78, 90, 106, Fig. 18, Req., 168-170).
Appellant makes no independent argument for the patentability of
claim 3. App. Br. 90. Appellant contends a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not combine Annevelink and Fleming because they “have
different purposes and are technologically incompatible.” Id.
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

19

The Examiner’s response to the improper combination argument is
that Annevelink and Fleming are in analogous fields of art. Ans. 84. In
addition, the Examiner contends Fleming would motivate the person of
ordinary skill to consult it and modify Annevelink because Fleming includes
architecture suitable for high speed commerce, thereby increasing the
operational efficiency of the database processing. Id. (citing Fleming, ¶ 13).
The Examiner has supported the combination with rational
underpinnings, so we therefore sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites the further limitation that
“at least one complex query for data located in a plurality of data sources,
the complex query calling a plurality of query function calls to query the
plurality of data sources for the data, the complex query having a set of input
parameters which define the data to be queried for, the set of input
parameters consisting of at least one dimension instance, a query result and a
description of the data to be queried.”
The Examiner acknowledges the limitation of claim 4 is not taught by
Annevelink. Ans. 22. The Examiner relies on Fleming to teach the above
limitation. Ans. 23-24 (citing Fleming, ¶¶ 90, 78, Req., 170-171).
Appellant’s primary argument is that the complex query has a set of
input parameters which are specified in the claim as at least one “dimension
instance,” “a query result” and a “description of the data to be queried.”
Appellant contends Fleming fails to show these inputs. App. Br. 91.
We agree with Appellant that the rejection turns on whether or not
Fleming shows the inputs. Again, the ‘087 Patent describes a “business
industry context” as “a set of dimensions which define the data pertinent to
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

20

an industry.” ‘087 Patent, 5:4-5. In the pharmaceutical industry example in
the ‘087 Patent, the dimension instance is the patient, i.e., Joe. App. Br. 91.
Given the breadth of business dimension context, we agree with the
Examiner. The Examiner, in adopting Requester’s position, finds that the
“dimension instance” is taught by Fleming’s ability to query “business data
from multiple networks.” Req. 170 (citing Fleming, ¶ 78). The complex
query is directed to data bases for revenue and cost. Id. The “query result”
is “profit.” Id. (citing Fleming, ¶ 90). The “description of the data to be
queried” is the request made to the data bases for revenue and cost. Req.
171 (citing Fleming, ¶ 90). Appellant argues that other parts of Fleming
disclose “indicator/category pairs” which give more extensive results. App.
Br. 91. Appellant does not address the specific mapping of the Examiner
discussed here. This argument is therefore not persuasive.
The Examiner has supported the combination with rational
underpinnings, so we therefore sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4, which depends from claim 1. Claim 5
recites the additional limitation that the description of data to be queried is
“an exact_request_for _information.”
The Examiner finds “an exact_request_for _information” is known in
the art. Ans. 23. The Examiner relies on Fleming’s teaching of at least one
complex query calling a plurality of query function calls to query the
plurality of data sources. Id. (citing Fleming ¶¶ 76, 78). Further, Fleming
teaches one complex query does not identify any data source to query. Id.
(citing Fleming ¶¶ 76, 78, 90, 106, Fig. 18, Req., 168-170).
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

21

Appellant offers no separate argument for the patentability of claim 5.
The Examiner’s rationale for rejecting claim 5 is supported by rational
underpinnings, so we therefore sustain the rejection of claim 5.
E. Rejection of Claims 7, 9, 10, 22- 25, 27, 29, 30, 33,
35, 36, and 48-52 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)

Claims 7, 9, 10, and 22- 25 depend directly or indirectly from claim 6.
Claims 27, 29, and 30 depend from claim 26. Claims 33, 35, 36 and 48
depend from claim 31.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 22- 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, and 48 all depend from
claims where we did not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. With respect to
these dependent claims, the Examiner relies on combinations of Annevelink
and one of more of Fleming, De Smedt, Black, and MacNicol. The
additional references are not relied on by the Examiner to meet the
interconnected plurality of nodes limitation and, therefore, do not cure the
noted deficiency of Annevelink. See Ans. 21-30, 89-105. As a result of this
and their dependency, we likewise do not sustain the rejections of claims 7,
9, 10, 22- 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, and 48.
Claim 49 is an independent claim that includes the limitation
“interconnecting the first plurality of nodes in a manner that represents
relationships between the corresponding business context dimensions.” In
our discussion of the rejection of claim 6, we found Annevelink lacking this
limitation. The Examiner relies on the same rationales presented in
connection with claim 6 in rejecting claim 49 as obvious over Annevelink,
Black and MacNicol. Ans. 30-32, 109-110. Specifically, Annevelink is the
reference relied on for the interconnected first plurality of nodes limitation
Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

22

of claim 49 and dependent claim 51. Ans. 31. Neither Black nor MacNicol
are relied on. Id. The rejections of claims 6 and 51 are therefore not
sustained.
Claims 50 and 52 depend from claim 49 and are rejected as obvious
over Annevelink, Black, MacNicol, and Fleming. Ans.34-35. As with
claims 6 and 51, only Annevelink is relied up for teaching the interconnected
first plurality of nodes limitation. Id. Thus, the deficiency is not cured and
the rejection of claims 50 and 52 is not sustained.

IV. CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5 under § 102.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6, 8, 11-21, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34,
and 37-47 under § 102.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 9, 10, 22- 25, 27, 29, 30, 33,
35, 36, and 48-52 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6-52 is reversed.
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

Appeal 2013-009046
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/011,985
Patent 7,464,087 B2

23

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

For Patent Owner:
CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP
The Calfee Building
1405 East Sixth Street
Cleveland, OH 44114-1607

For Third Party Requester:
MAYER BROWN LLP
P.O. Box 2828
Chicago, IL 60690