Ex Parte Amundsen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 5, 2012

11290877 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 5, 2012)

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.
11/290,877 11/30/2005 Lance C. Amundsen ROC920050139US1 9410
46797 7590 03/05/2012
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
KUMAR, ANIL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/05/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte LANCE C. AMUNDSEN and JOHN M. SANTOSUOSSO

Appeal 2009-014860
Application 11/290,877
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014860
Application 11/290,877

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 10.
We reverse.

INVENTION
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method for presenting
chronologically ordered database event information through a
user interface, comprising:
displaying a graphical user interface having user-
selectable graphical elements associated with predefined
playback controls;
receiving user inputs with respect to the graphical
elements to invoke the respective predefined playback controls;
in response to at least one of the user inputs, visually
playing back, in the graphical user interface, a recording
showing graphical objects being acted upon by
chronologically ordered events within a period of time, such
that a user observes visually recognizable changes occurring
within the graphical user interface during playback of the
recording; wherein the recording is based on information
captured by one or more database monitors monitoring a
database system comprising a plurality of databases and tables
within each of the databases; wherein the graphical objects
include at least representative icons for the plurality of
databases and the tables within each of the databases, and
wherein the visually recognizable changes shown during
playback of the recording include an animated presentation of
individual rows of the respective tables changing over time
according to database operations being performed
on the respective databases; and
receiving user input selecting a button included with the
playback controls configured to halt playback of the recording
at a desired point in time and allow a user to examine a state of
the database system at the desired point in time through
interaction with the graphical user interface.
Appeal 2009-014860
Application 11/290,877

3

REFERENCES
HARRISON US 2005/0193376 A1 Sep. 1, 2005
SEAMAN US 5,682,330 Oct. 28,1997
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 10 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Harrison in view of Seaman.
Answer 4-9.1
ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 10 of the Brief, that Harrison is directed to
a system to display current performance and not a playback system which
provides a diagnostic tool used to explore historical information as claimed.
Brief 13. 2 Further, Appellants argue that Seaman is directed to processing
images or video to identify repetitive events but is not directed to a playback
of chronological events in a database. Brief 14. These arguments present us
with the issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Harrison in view
of Seaman teach visually playing back a recording showing objects being
acted on, where the recording is based upon information captured by one or
more database monitoring monitors as claimed?3

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
May 27, 2009.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated February 12,
2009.
3 We note that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues. App.
Br. 9-15. However, we do not reach the additional issues as this issue is
dispositive of the Appeal.
Appeal 2009-014860
Application 11/290,877

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’
conclusion that the combination of Harrison in view of Seaman does not
teach visually playing back a recording showing objects being acted on,
where the recording is based upon information captured by one or more
database monitoring monitors as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Harrison is related to graphical monitoring of
performance data from a DBMS (database monitoring system). Answer 11.
We concur with the Examiner’s findings. Further, the Examiner finds that
Seaman teaches a method of storing and retrieving textual and time based
graphics, and that while the reference does not teach use with a DBMS it
would have been obvious to apply the graphical playback features to
Harrison. Answer 12.
While we concur with the Examiner that Seaman teaches a playback
system we do not see how the combined teachings yield the claimed system.
The Examiner has not shown that that either system teaches a recording
showing objects where the recording is based upon information captured by
the database monitoring system, i.e. Harrison teaches displaying the results
of database monitoring, but not that they are recorded for playback.
Accordingly Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1-10.

Appeal 2009-014860
Application 11/290,877

5

SUMMARY
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 10 is
reversed.

REVERSED

ke