Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2014

11936868 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 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.
11/936,868 11/08/2007 Richard Dean Dettinger ROC920070555US1 1625
46797 7590 02/11/2014
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
CHEN, TE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2014 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 RICHARD DEAN DETTINGER,
JAN THERESA KARELS, and
RICHARD JOSEPH STEVENS
____________

Appeal 2011-013073
Application 11/936,8681
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
Appeal 2011-013073
Application 11/936,868

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-21, all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to performing federated
queries of data records stored in multiple sources. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving input to compose a federated query, wherein
the federated query requests data records stored in plurality of
databases, and wherein the federated query includes a reference
to a first key field and a first key value used to identify an entity
in a first database of the plurality of databases;
issuing the federated query, over a network connection,
to a database management system (DBMS), wherein the DBMS
is configured to:
identify one or more alias keys corresponding to
the first key field and the first key value,
determine, for each alias key, one or more alias
key values corresponding to the first key value, wherein each
alias key value is used to identify the entity in a respective
second database of the plurality of databases,
generate a query plan for the federated query,
wherein the query plan includes the determined alias keys and
alias key values, and
execute the federated query based on the generated
query plan, to produce query results; and
receiving, over the network connection, the query results
from the DBMS.
Appeal 2011-013073
Application 11/936,868

3

Appellants appeal the following rejections:

R1. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Altinel (U.S. 7,395,258 B2, July 1, 2008).
R2. Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-25 of co-pending Application No. 11/930,937 (see Ans. 4).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Rejection under §102(e) of Claims 1-21
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Altinel discloses an alias
key value that is used to identify the entity in a respective second database of
the plurality of databases?

Appellants contend that “the ‘cache key’ disclosed in Altinel is not
used to identify an entity in a second database, in the manner claimed.
Instead, the ‘cache key’ specifies a value used to select rows used to
populate a cache table” (App. Br. 14). Appellants further contend that
“while the tables in the cache copy may be identified using nicknames, any
data values in the cached tables are the same” (Reply Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-013073
Application 11/936,868

4
The Examiner found “Altinel clearly disclosed that ‘Nicknames in
DB2.TM are references to remote tables that can be used in federated
queries” (Ans. 14) (emphasis omitted). We agree with the Examiner.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis. Specifically, Altinel discloses:
Deepening this approach, sub-table caching provides an
effective alternative by caching only selected parts of backend
database tables. . . .
Nicknames in DB2™ are references to remote tables that
can be used in federated queries. . . . This way, existing
materialized view-matching mechanisms in DB2™ can be
exploited to route queries to either cached tables, by
materialized views, or to backend tables, by nick-names
depending on query predicates.
(Col. 2, ll. 33-48). Altinel further discloses that “a local query is distributed
amongst both a local cache and a remote database by a query” (col. 4, ll. 7-
9).
In other words, Altinel discloses a method wherein federated queries
are routed to either cached tables or to backend tables by exploiting
nicknames. Here, we find that the Examiner reasonably associated the
claimed first database, the second database, and the alias key value to
Altinel’s local cache tables, remote backend tables, and nicknames,
respectively (see Ans. 14). Altinel’s nicknames are used to identify the
entity in the respective backend tables, i.e., the second database.
Although Appellants contend that Altinel’s data values in the cache
tables are the same as the data values in the backend tables (i.e., a mere
copy) (see Reply Br. 3), we find that such an argument is unavailing and, in
Appeal 2011-013073
Application 11/936,868

5
any event, not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, as the language of
claim 1 does not quire that the data values be different in the plurality of
databases.
In view of the above discussion, because Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the
disclosure of Altinel, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-21 not separately
argued by Appellants, is sustained.

Double Patenting Rejections
Appellants do not contest the provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejection (i.e., R2). We note that arguments not made are
considered waived.2 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, we pro
forma sustain the Examiner’s provisional obviousness-type double patenting
rejections of claims 1-21.

DECISION
We affirm (1) the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claims 1-21 and
we affirm (2) the Examiner’s provisional obviousness-type double patent
rejection. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

2 See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir 2008) (“When the
appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, section
1.192(c)(7) [(now section 41.37(c)(1)(vii))] imposes no burden on the Board
to consider the merits of that ground of rejection. . . . [T]he Board may treat
any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.”).
Appeal 2011-013073
Application 11/936,868

6
AFFIRMED

msc