Ex Parte Arends et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 8, 2013

11740355 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2013)

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.
11/740,355 04/26/2007 Mitch J. Arends ROC920060469US1 1998
46797 7590 05/09/2013
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2013 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 MITCH J. ARENDS, MICHAEL T. BREITBACH,
RICHARD D. DETTINGER, and FREDERICK A. KULACK
____________

Appeal 2011-001734
Application 11/740,355
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-001734
Application 11/740,355

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-21. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method, computer readable storage medium,
and system for processing abstract rules using query results having rows
with multiple data values in each column. Abstract; Spec. ¶ [0027].
According to Appellants, the disclosed invention possesses the following
functionality: (1) it creates value fields to “store the multiple data values of
each attribute contained in each row of the query results;” (2) it transforms
each abstract rule into “a single executable rule corresponding to each row
of the query results;” (3) it uses each executable rule to reference the value
fields created to store the multiple data values; and (4) it processes each
executable rule using the value fields of the corresponding row as rule
inputs. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. Independent claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method of processing an
abstract rule, comprising:
receiving an abstract rule having a conditional statement
and a consequential statement, wherein the consequential
statement defines a particular recommendation that is returned
when the conditional statement is satisfied, wherein the
conditional statement and the consequential statement are
defined using a set of logical fields, and wherein the logical
fields are defined in an abstraction model that models
Appeal 2011-001734
Application 11/740,355

3
underlying physical data in a manner making a schema of the
physical data transparent to a user of the abstraction model;
receiving a set of query results including a row having a
plurality of values for a column;
generating a plurality of value fields, each storing one of
the plurality of values for the column in the row;
transforming the abstract rule to generate an executable
rule, wherein each logical field included in the abstract rule is
replaced with at least one of the generated value fields logically
related to the logical field being replaced; and
processing, by a rules engine, the executable rule, using
the generated value fields as rule inputs.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Dettinger US 2003/0167274 A1 Sept. 4, 2003
Cousins US 6,732,094 B1 May 4, 2004

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Cousins and Dettinger. Ans. 3-15.
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that the combination of Cousins and Dettinger
teaches “receiving a set of query results including a row having a plurality of
values for a column,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 8, and similarly
recited in independent claim 15. Ans. 6-8, 17-21. In particular, the
Examiner cites to the tables illustrated in Figure 20 of Malloy (U.S. Patent
No. 2004/0122844 A1, published June 24, 2004)—specifically table 2020—
as extrinsic evidence to show a plurality of values per column, as claimed.
Id.
Appeal 2011-001734
Application 11/740,355

4
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Malloy fails to teach “receiving a set of query
results including a row having a plurality of values for a column,” as recited
in independent claims 1 and 8, and similarly recited in independent claim 15.
Br. 13-16. In particular, Appellants disagree with the Examiner’s position
that Malloy’s table 2020 illustrates that the data associated with
“ELECTRO” constitutes a single row. Id. at 15-16.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Cousins and Dettinger collectively teach
“receiving a set of query results including a row having a plurality of values
for a column,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 8, and similarly recited
in independent claim 15?

III. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 8, and 15
Based on the record before us, we discern error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 8, which recite, inter alia,
“receiving a set of query results including a row having a plurality of values
for a column.” We also discern error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 15, which recites a similar claim limitation.
At the outset, the Examiner relies upon the functionality in Cousins of
processing a database query to obtain a database result table, in conjunction
with Dettinger’s use of “F” and “M” gender values in a patient information
table, to teach the “receiving” method step. Ans. 6-7 (citing to Cousins, col.
Appeal 2011-001734
Application 11/740,355

5
2, ll. 3-7; and Dettinger, ¶ [0076], Fig. 5). The Examiner then states that “it
is inherent to one ordinary skilled in the art that the plurality of values for
the column in the row” [sic], which we take arguendo as an assertion that
one with ordinary skill in the art would have understood that it is old and
well known for a table to contain a row with a plurality of values in a
column. See id. at 7. The Examiner then cites to Figure 20 of Malloy as
extrinsic evidence to show that one with ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that both Cousins and Dettinger teach a database result table
containing a row with a plurality of values in a column. Id. at 7-8.
Figure 20 of Malloy illustrates a sample cube that is typical of grid-
based On-Line Analytical Processing (“OLAP”) viewers, i.e., query
processors. Malloy, ¶ [0178]. Figure 20 of Malloy is reproduced below.

Figure 20 illustrates a sample cube in a OLAP viewer

Appeal 2011-001734
Application 11/740,355

6
The Examiner interprets table 2020 as showing that the data associated with
“ELECTRO” represents one row that includes a plurality of values per
column. Ans. 17-18. For instance, the Examiner takes the position that the
first column of the “ELECTRO” row contains two associated values—
namely “USA” and “CANADA.” Id. at 21.
Appellants contend that if the data associated with “ELECTRO”
includes both “USA” and “CANADA” in a single row, then a person
viewing table 2020 would be unable to determine whether “USA” is
associated with the amount “16255” or “1948.” Br. 15. Similarly,
Appellants contend that a person viewing table 2020 would be unable to
determine whether “CANADA” is associated with the quantity of “1703” or
“223.” Id. We agree with Appellants. One with ordinary skill in the art,
upon viewing the data displayed in Malloy’s table 2020, would have
recognized that “USA” and “CANADA,” and the data corresponding to
these labels located in both the “AMOUNT” and “QUANTITY” columns,
constitute separate and distinct rows. Moreover, one with ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized that the term “ELECTRO” is displayed only
once in order to improve clarity. As a result, the Examiner has not presented
sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that Malloy teaches a row having
multiple values in a column, or that one with ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that both Cousins and Dettinger teach the disputed claim
limitation.
Because the Examiner’s reliance on the teachings of Cousins,
Dettinger, and Malloy does not properly account for the disputed claim
limitation, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. It
Appeal 2011-001734
Application 11/740,355

7
follows that the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of
Cousins and Dettinger renders independent 1, 8, and 15 unpatentable.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21
Because dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 incorporate the
disputed claim limitation of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the Examiner
erred in rejecting these claims for the same reasons set forth in our
discussion above.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims
1-21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

V. DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-21.

REVERSED

llw