11380772 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 13, 2012)

Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 13, 2012

11380772 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 13, 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. 11/380,772 04/28/2006 Richard D. Dettinger ROC920050154US1 3160 46797 7590 08/13/2012 IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1 3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829 EXAMINER RICHARDSON, JAMES E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2167 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/13/2012 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, JANICE R. GLOWACKI, DANIEL P. KOLZ, PADMA S. RAO, MARCI L. SPERBER, and SHANNON E. WENZEL ____________________ Appeal 2009-015334 Application 11/380,772 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015334 Application 11/380,772 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 23-25. Claims 5 and 10-22 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellants’ invention generally relates to a data processing and, more specifically, to increasing the flexibility and the reusability of parameterized queries (Spec. 1, ¶ [0001]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of processing parameterized queries, comprising: providing a parameterized query having one or more specified output fields for which data is to be returned and at least one condition comprising a parameter marker configured to take an assigned value selected from a plurality of possible values; receiving a selection from one of a plurality of possible selections, comprising: specifying a value for the parameter marker selected from the plurality of possible values; and requesting a predefined desired results characteristic without specifying a value for the parameter marker; and Appeal 2009-015334 Application 11/380,772 3 if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker, modifying the query based on a predefined query modification process corresponding to the requested predefined desired results characteristic, the modification comprising removing the at least one condition comprising the parameter marker, whereby the parameterized query is transformed into a non-parameterized executable query. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Antoshenkov US 5,664,172 Sep. 02, 1997 Dettinger US 2005/0076015 Al Apr. 07, 2005 Yuknewicz US 2005/0171934 Al Aug. 04, 2005 Curtis, Extreme UltraDev, Tutorial 12, http://web.archive.org/web/20021201102403/http://www.princeton.ed u/~rcurtis/ultradev/tutorial12.html (Dec. 01, 2002). ASP FAQ, How do I delimit/format dates for database entry? http://classicasp.aspfaq.com/date-time-routines-manipulation/how-do- i-delimit/format-dates-for-database-entry.html (Mar. 29, 2005). Claims 1-4, 7-9, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yuknewicz, Dettinger and Curtis. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yuknewicz, Dettinger, Curtis, and ASP FAQ. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yuknewicz, Dettinger, Curtis, and Antoshenkov. Appeal 2009-015334 Application 11/380,772 4 II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Yuknewicz, Dettinger, and Curtis teaches or would have suggested “requesting a predefined desired results characteristic without specifying a value for the parameter marker” and, “if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker, modifying the query…, the modification comprising removing the at least one condition comprising the parameter marker, whereby the parameterized query is transformed into a non-parameterized executable query” (claim 1)? III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Yuknewicz 1. Yuknewicz discloses a user selecting a dataset and choosing whether to select an existing parameterized query or to define a new parameterized query to execute upon the selected dataset (Abstract), wherein Yuknewicz’s Figure 5 is reproduced below: App App param place that @Zi eal 2009-0 lication 11 Figure 5 eterized holder for does not ch p Code” (p 15334 /380,772 shows a p query inpu the zip co ange such . 4-5, ¶ [0 arameteriz t field 550 de parame as “Zip C 052]). 5 ed query , wherein ter and a q ode = 000 dialog box the code “ uery may 01” rather 500 that i @Zip Cod include a than “Zip ncludes e” is a constant Code = App App desir below as de requ expo (p. 4 abstr man eal 2009-0 lication 11 2. D ed result s : As show fined by t esting enti ses inform , ¶ [0050]) 3. Th act query ipulating th 15334 /380,772 ettinger di ize (Abstr n in Figur he respecti ty (p. 4, ¶ ation as a . e user can (p. 6, ¶ [00 e value o D scloses mo act), where e 2A, the r ve applica [0049]), an set of logi dictate th 69]), whe f the logica 6 ettinger difying qu in Detting equesting tion query d the data cal fields t e number rein the lo l field (p. ery eleme er’s Figur entity 140 specificat abstractio hat may b of results r gical field 8, ¶ [0069 nts to prod e 2A is rep issues a q ion 142 of n model 1 e used wit eturned fo s may be m ]) or a que uce a roduced uery 202 the 48 hin a quer r a given odified b ry y y App App cond (p. 9 @W below valu 1, ll. retrie App the s 11). mod 10), eal 2009-0 lication 11 ition havin , ¶ [0071]) 4. Cu hereString : A defaul es are pass 40-42). Althoug ving and ellants con ame as req Although ifying elem Appellant 15334 /380,772 g a define . rtis disclo queries, w t value for ed into the h Appellan manipulati tend that “ uesting a Appellant ents of a s contend t d value m ses buildi herein Cu the @Wh stored pr IV. A ts admit th ng data us a requirem predefined s admit th query to p hat “Detti 7 ay be rem Curtis ng query p rtis’s @W ereString ocedure w NALYSI at “Yukn ing param ent place desired re at “Detting roduce a d nger does oved altog arameters hereString is provide hich will r S ewicz disc eterized qu d on an inp sults char er disclos esired resu not disclos ether from on the fly Table is d in the ev eturn all re loses meth eries” (A ut of a qu acteristic” es method lt size” (A e query m a query for reproduce ent that no cords (p. ods for pp. Br. 10) ery is not (App. Br. s for pp. Br. odification d , Appeal 2009-015334 Application 11/380,772 8 comprising removing the at least one condition (of the parameterized query) comprising the parameter marker, whereby the parameterized query is transformed into a non-parameterized executable query” (App. Br. 11). Appellants also contend that the Examiner relies on Dettinger to disclose “modifying the query” but relies on Curtis to disclose “if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker,” and thus, such “parsing of the claims elements by the Examiner is improper” (App. Br. 12). However, the Examiner finds that “Yuknewicz discloses requesting a predefined result characteristic by selecting a query” wherein “the user is requesting that the results of the executed query, in this instance, be characterized by value entered into the parameter ‘@ZipCode’ in the shown query” (Ans. 18). The Examiner explains that “the user is selecting before the query is executed, and before a value is assigned to the query parameter, that the results of the query be determined … based on a yet to be assigned zip code” and “[t]hus the desired result characteristic is predefined” (Ans. 18-19). The Examiner also finds that Dettinger discloses that “the query can [be] modified by changing the value of a condition” (Ans. 20) wherein “a parameterized query, i.e. a modifiable abstract query, is transformed into a non-parameterized, i.e. a concrete, executable query” (Ans. 21). The Examiner also explains that “Curtis is not solely referenced to simply disclose ‘if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker’ as Appellant appears to be arguing” but rather “Curtis discloses every limitation element … except for the element ‘the modification comprising removing the at least one condition comprising the parameter marker’” (App. Br. 22-23). Appeal 2009-015334 Application 11/380,772 9 By arguing what Yuknewicz and Dettinger do not teach (App. Br. 10- 11), Appellants appear to be arguing that the references do not individually anticipate the claimed invention. However, since the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over the combined teachings of Yuknewicz, Dettinger, and Curtis, the test for obviousness is not what each reference shows but what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Yuknewicz discloses a user choosing whether to select an existing parameterized query or to define a new parameterized query to execute upon the selected dataset, wherein a parameterized query dialog may include a placeholder for a parameter “Zip Code = @Zip Code” (FF 1). We find Yuknewicz to disclose or at the least suggest “requesting a predefined desired results characteristic without specifying a value for the parameter marker,” as required by claim 1. That is, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Yuknewicz discloses “the results of the query be determined … based on a yet to be assigned zip code” and “[t]hus the desired result characteristic is predefined” (Ans. 18-19). Yuknewicz also discloses that the query may include a constant that does not change such as “Zip Code = 00001” rather than “Zip Code = @Zip Code” (FF 1). Thus, we find Yuknewicz also discloses or would have suggested “modifying the query” wherein “the modification comprising removing the at least one condition comprising the parameter marker, whereby the parameterized query is transformed into a non-parameterized executable query” as required by claim 1. Furthermore, Dettinger discloses that the user can dictate the number of results returned for a given abstract query, wherein the logical fields may Appeal 2009-015334 Application 11/380,772 10 be modified by manipulating the value of the logical field or a query condition having a defined value may be removed altogether from a query (FF 2-3). Thus, we find Dettinger also discloses or would have suggested “modifying the query” wherein “the modification comprising removing the at least one condition,” whereby the query is transformed, as required by claim 1. Dettinger also discloses that the data field, such as the “city” field, may include a placeholder such as “any” (FF 2). We find Dettinger to also disclose or would have suggested “requesting a predefined desired results characteristic without specifying a value,” as required by claim 1. Thus, the combination of Yuknewicz in view of Dettinger teaches or at the least would have suggested requesting a predefined results characteristic without specifying a value and modifying a parameterized query to transform it into a non-parameterized query. We find that the only feature of Appellants’ invention missing from the combined teachings of Yuknewicz and Dettinger is an explicit teaching that the modification of the parameterized query transforms the parameterized query into a non- parameterized query “if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker” (claim 1). However, Curtis discloses building query parameters on the fly, wherein a default value is provided in the event that no values are passed into the stored procedure which will return all records (FF 4). We find “requesting a predefined desired results characteristic without specifying a value for the parameter marker” (claim 1) to read on Curtis’s request in the event that no values are passed, and we find “if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker, modifying the query…, whereby Appeal 2009-015334 Application 11/380,772 11 the parameterized query is transformed into a non-parameterized executable query” (claim 1) to read on Curtis’s modification of the query to a default value when no values are passed. Although Appellants contend that relying on Dettinger to disclose “modifying the query” but on Curtis to disclose “if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker” is “improper” (App. Br. 12) and that “Dettinger and Curtis are incompatible and cannot be combined” (App. Br. 13), Appellants are viewing the references from a different perspective than the Examiner. As the Examiner explains, “Curtis is not solely referenced to simply disclose ‘if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker’ as Appellant appears to be arguing” (Ans. 22-23). Further, the issue is not whether the system of Dettinger can be combined with the system of Curtis. That is, the issue here is whether a person of ordinary skill, upon reading Curtis’s teaching of modifying a query to provide a default value when no value is being specified in query modification, would be discouraged from providing a default value when no value is being specified to the query modification that the combined teachings of Yuknewicz and Dettinger teach or suggest. We agree with the Examiner that Curtis’s teaching would not have been discouraged the artisan from combining the references. As the Examiner finds, the references “are in the field of endeavor relating to modification of a query” (Ans. 25). The Supreme Court has determined that the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in Appeal 2009-015334 Application 11/380,772 12 the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over Yuknewicz, Dettinger and Curtis. Since Appellants do not provide arguments for independent claim 23 and claims 2-4, 7-9 and 24, respectively depending from claims 1 and 23, separate from those of claim 1 (App. Br. 11-14), we also find that Appellants have not shown Examiner error in rejecting claims 2-4, 7-9, 23, and 24 over Yuknewicz, Dettinger and Curtis. Appellants provide no arguments for claims 6 and 25 depending from claims 1 and 23 respectively (App. Br. 14). As discussed above with respect to claim 1 (and thus claim 23), we find no error with the Examiner’s rejection over Yuknewicz, Dettinger and Curtis. Accordingly, we find no Examiner error in rejecting claim 6 over Yuknewicz, Dettinger, and Curtis in further view of ASP FAQ and in rejecting claim 25 over Yuknewicz, Dettinger, and Curtis in further view of Antoshenkov. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED Appeal 2009-015334 Application 11/380,772 13 peb