Ex Parte Arora et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2012

10949102 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 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.
10/949,102 09/24/2004 Geeta Arora 50277-2545 3452
42425 7590 05/31/2012
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
MOBIN, HASANUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2012 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 GEETA ARORA, MAGDI MORSI,
and RAJENDRA S. PINGTE
_____________

Appeal 2010-002358
Application 10/949,102
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and KRISTEN L.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002358
Application 10/949,102

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 22.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed a system where a target database receives an
object from a source database. The source database determines the object
type by either inspecting the object to determine object type based upon
characteristics of the object or based upon a source database object type.
See page 5 of Appellants’ Specification. Claims 1 and 5 are representative
of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A machine-implemented method, comprising the steps
of:
receiving, at a target database server, an object;
wherein the target database server does not know the
object type associated with the object;
wherein the object is not associated with an identifier that
identifies, to the target database server, the object type
associated with the object;
wherein the target database server is unable, without
knowing the object type associated with the object, to properly
interpret the object;
inspecting, at the target database server, the object to
determine a set of characteristics of the object;
determining an object type of the object based on the set
of characteristics of the object, wherein the object type is a
database construct that defines (a) attributes of all instances of
the object type and (b) methods for the attributes;
determining a target identifier for the object, wherein the
target identifier identifies, to the target database server, the
object type associated with the object; and
Appeal 2010-002358
Application 10/949,102

3

using the target identifier, within the target database
server, to properly interpret the object.

5. A machine-implemented method, comprising the step of:
receiving, at a target database server, an object from a
source database server;
inspecting, at the target database server, the object to
determine a source identifier, wherein the source identifier
identifies to the source database server the object type
associated with the object;
wherein the object type is a database construct that
defines (a) attributes of all instances of the object type and (b)
methods for the attributes;
determining a target identifier for the object based on a
mapping that associates source identifiers to target identifiers,
wherein the target identifier identifies, to the target
database server, the object type associated with the object; and
using the target identifier, within the target database
server, to properly interpret the object.

REFERNCES
Alston US 5,315,709 May 24, 1994
MacLeod US 6,356,901 B1 Mar. 12, 2002
Ball US 2003/0204510 A1 Oct. 30, 2003
Turski US 2004/0255301 A1 Dec. 16, 2004

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Alston in view of Ball. Answer 4-91.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
July 28, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002358
Application 10/949,102

4

The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 4, 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Alston in view of Ball and Turski. Answer 9-
11.
The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 12, 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Alston in view of Ball and MacLeod. Answer
11-14.
The Examiner has rejected claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Alston. Answer 14-17.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 7, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Alston in view of Turski. Answer 17-18.
The Examiner has rejected claims 8, 9, 17, 18, 20 and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Alston in view of MacLeod. Answer
19-22.
ISSUES
Rejection of claims 1 and 10
Appellants argue on pages 7 and 8 of the Brief2 that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 10 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us
with the following issue: did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Alston and Ball teaches determining an object type based upon the set of
characteristics of the object as recited in independent claims 1 and 10?3

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief dated April
21, 2009 and Reply Brief dated September 25, 2009.
3 We note Appellants’ arguments present additional issues but we do not
reach them as this issue is dispositive of the Appeal.
Appeal 2010-002358
Application 10/949,102

5

Rejection of claims 5 and 14
Appellants argue on pages 13 through 21 of the Reply Brief, that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 14 is in error. Appellants’ arguments
present us with the following issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the
target database server inspects an object to determine a source identifier that
identifies the object type to the source database as recited in independent
claims 5 and 14?4

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 10 and the claims which depend from them.
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of Alston and Ball teaches determining an object
type based upon the set of characteristics of the object as recited in
independent claims 1 and 10. The Examiner responds to Appellants’
arguments by stating that in Alston’s system the target design object does
not know the object type until the data transformation. Answer 23. Further,
the Examiner finds that in Ball the target database does not know the object
type until an identifier is assigned to the object in the target database.
Answer 24. However, we do not see where the Examiner has identified a
disclosure in either of the references which teaches the target database
inspects the object to determine a set of characteristics and determines the

4 We note Appellants’ arguments present additional issues but we do not
reach them as this issue is dispositive of the Appeal.
Appeal 2010-002358
Application 10/949,102

6

object type based upon these characteristics, as recited in independent claims
1 and 10. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 10. Similarly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of dependent claims 2 through 4, 11 through 13, 19 and 21 as they
rely upon Alston and Ball to teach the limitations of independent claims 1
and 10.
Independent claims 5, 14 and the claims which depend from them.
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We
concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that
the target database server inspects an object to determine a source identifier
that identifies the object type to the source database as recited in
independent claims 5 and 14. The Examiner responds to Appellants’
arguments by stating that Alston teaches a verification process in which
objects in the target design space are checked against objects in the source
space. Answer 26. Further, the Examiner states that “there is no need to
mention the term ‘identifier’ since it is obvious that the identifier is there.”
Answer 26. We disagree with the Examiner. The Examiner has not cited
evidence to support the finding that the identifier is there, nor has the
Examiner identified how this teaching of Alston meets the claimed feature of
the target database server inspecting the object to determine the source
identifier which identifies to the source database the object type.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 5 and 14. Similarly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
dependent claims 6 through 9, 15 through 18, 20 and 22 as they rely upon
Alston to teach the limitations of independent claims 5 and 14.
Appeal 2010-002358
Application 10/949,102

7

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 22 is
reversed.

REVERSED

msc