Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 12, 2012

11266739 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 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.
11/266,739 11/03/2005 Richard D. Dettinger ROC920050248US1 8649
46797 7590 01/13/2012
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
SINGH, AMRESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2012 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 RICHARD D. DETTINGER, DANIEL P. KOLZ, and
RICHARD J. STEVENS

___________

Appeal 2009-012985
Application 11/266,739
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012985
Application 11/266,739

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1 and 4-10. Claims 2, 3 and 11-20 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to verification of query language to a
database by providing a natural language description for the query language.
The natural language description is generated for each query component
along with selectable text representing the query component. The query
component can be edited upon selection of the selectable text. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A computer-implemented method for verifying query
logic, comprising:
receiving a first user input corresponding to a query language,
the first input defining a plurality of query components for a query
being composed by a user;
for each query component, generating a natural language
description for the query component, wherein each respective natural
language description provides a statement of an action performed by
the query component when the query is executed;
receiving a second user input, wherein the second user input
modifies a portion of the natural language description; and
in response to the modified portion of the natural language
description, modifying the query component corresponding to the
modified portion to provide a modified query, which when executed,
performs an action specified by the modified natural language
statement.
Appeal 2009-012985
Application 11/266,739

3
Claims 1, 4 and 6-101 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Mocek (U.S. Patent No. 5,924,089, July 13, 1999) and
Fries (U.S. Patent No. 6,460,029 B1, Oct. 1, 2002).
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Mocek, Fries and Johndrew (U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2001/0049697 A1, Dec. 6, 2001).
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 12; see also
Reply Br. 3) that the combination of Mocek and Fries would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the disputed
limitation “in response to the modified portion of the natural language
description, modifying the query component corresponding to the modified
portion to provide a modified query, which when executed, performs an
action specified by the modified natural language statement.”
The Examiner acknowledged that Mocek does not disclose the
disputed limitation and, therefore, cited Fries for teaching a text box 312 in a
balloon 308 that includes a selectable list 311 for correcting a misspelled
word, as indicated by a visual cue 309. (Ans. 4.) The Examiner concluded
that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to allow a user to compose a query
via selecting query component that generate a natural language selection,
and then to let a user modify the natural language selection in case the query
is not exactly what the user was searching for.” (Ans. 4.) We do not agree.
Mocek relates to Relational Database Management Systems
(RDBMS) (col. 2, ll. 35-37; col. 1, ll. 33-35) that “provides for the display of

1 The Examiner and Appellants have erroneously included dependent
claim 5 in the statement of the rejection. (Ans. 3; App. Br. 9.)
Appeal 2009-012985
Application 11/266,739

4
database management information on a computer in a user-friendly way to
minimize errors and maximize database usership” (Abstract). Figure 3E of
Mocek illustrates a condition tab window 370 that includes a database table
dropdown listbox 372, a relational condition listbox 378, and a search string
edit box 380. (Col. 4, l. 65 to col. 5, l. 16.) “The computer system 100 then
interprets the values selected above, and displays a natural language
translation of the database commands selected above in the natural language
translation listbox 382 . . . .” (Col. 5, ll. 16-19.) As a result, a user can view
a plain-language translation of the selected database command and make
alterations or changes necessary before submitting a Structured Query
Language (SQL) request. (Col. 5, ll. 20-23.)
However, the text in the natural language transition listbox 382 of
Mocek is controlled by the selection of search string in the search string edit
box 380, but not vice versa. Thus, even if Mocek were modified such that
the words in the natural language transition listbox 382 were altered using
the spell check function of Fries, there is no teaching or suggestion that the
alteration of words in the natural language transition listbox 382 would
necessary result in the alteration of the search string in the search string edit
box 380.
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Mocek and Fries would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “in response to the modified portion of the natural
language description, modifying the query component corresponding to the
modified portion to provide a modified query, which when executed,
performs an action specified by the modified natural language statement.”
Appeal 2009-012985
Application 11/266,739

5
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 4 and 6-10 depend from independent
claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims 4 and 6-
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Johndrew was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional
features of dependent claim 5. (Ans. 7.) However, the Examiner’s
application of Johndrew does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of
Mocek and Fries. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5 for
the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 4-10 is reversed.

REVERSED

ke