Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 18, 2012

11290895 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 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.
11/290,895 11/30/2005 Richard D. Dettinger ROC920050247US1 9425
46797 7590 01/19/2012
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
PADMANABHAN, KAVITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/19/2012 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 2009-011197
Application 11/290,895
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and BRUCE R.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-011197
Application 11/290,895

2

STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11, 21, and 22.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Invention
The invention is directed to a method of managing access to data in a
database (Spec. ¶ [0002]; claim 1). Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method of managing access to
data in a database, comprising:
receiving, from a requesting entity, a query against a
database having consumable data that is configured to be
accessible for only a predefined number of accesses, the query
being configured to access the consumable data;
executing the query against the database to obtain a query
result that includes the consumable data;
determining whether the predefined number of accesses
is reached as a result of the execution of the query against the
database;
if so, making the consumable data inaccessible; and
returning the obtained query result to the requesting
entity, wherein:
making the consumable data inaccessible
comprises at least replacing the consumable data with

1 Claims 3, 4, 10, and 12-20 have been canceled. Claims 23-30 are
withdrawn from consideration as they are directed to a non-elected invention
(see Final Rej. 2-3).
Appeal 2009-011197
Application 11/290,895

3

replacement data that includes one or more null values,
and the method further comprises subsequently replacing
the replacement data with suitable consumable data, and
the consumable data is stored in a column of a
database table, the column being defined as a consumable
column according to metadata including the predefined
number of accesses.

Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 11, 21, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lei (US 2004/0139043 A1) and
Kashiwada (US 2002/0108053 A1). Ans. 4-8.
The Examiner has also rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lei and Kashiwada, further in view of Schneck (US
2001/0021926 A1). Ans. 8-9.

ISSUE
Appellants argue (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2-3) the Examiner’s
rejections are in error as the combination of references does not disclose
once a threshold is reached, making the consumable data inaccessible, and
returning the obtained query result to the requesting entity, as recited in
claim 1. The Examiner relies upon Kashiwada’s paragraphs [0005], [0008],
and [0012] as teaching deleting consumable data and storing other
consumable data in its place (see Ans. 5), and Kashiwada’s SA12 and SA13
shown in Figure 2 as teaching storing new data and repeating the process
(see Ans. 11). Accordingly, the issue is whether Kashiwada teaches or
suggests determining whether a predefined number of accesses is reached,
Appeal 2009-011197
Application 11/290,895

4

and if so, making the consumable data inaccessible by replacing the
consumable data with replacement data including one or more null values?2

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the briefs and we concur
with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of references teaches determining whether a predefined number
of accesses is reached, and if so, making the consumable data inaccessible
by replacing the consumable data with replacement data, as claimed.
The Examiner in rejecting independent claim 1 finds Kashiwada’s
paragraphs [0003], [0005], [0008], and [0012] teach deleting consumable
data and storing other consumable data in its place when a threshold number
of times for access is reached (see Ans. 5). Paragraphs [0003] and [0005]
disclose counting the number of times secret data is accessed, and deleting
the secret data when the number of times exceeds a threshold. Paragraph
[0008] mentions a storing unit including memory sections 17, 21, and 42,
but does not disclose replacing the secret data with other data. Paragraphs
[0003], [0005], [0008], and [0012] are silent with respect to storing other
data to replace the secret data that has been deleted.
The Examiner also finds Kashiwada’s steps SA12 and SA13 shown in
Figure 2 teach storing new data and repeating the process (see Ans. 11). As
depicted in Kashiwada’s Figure 2, step SA12 stores code key data in the

2 We recognize that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues. Many
of the arguments presented by the additional issues are not persuasive;
nonetheless we were persuaded of error by this issue and as such we do not
reach the additional issues as this issue is dispositive of the appeal.
Appeal 2009-011197
Application 11/290,895

5

secret data storage region, and step SA13 is a completion notification. Our
review of Kashiwada’s Figure 2 and the description of steps SA12 and SA13
found at paragraph [0036] reveals that at step SA12 the CPU 12 stores
received code key data in the secret data storage region 17a, and at step
SA13 the CPU 12 notifies the outside apparatus that the storing of the code
key data has been completed, and then returns to step SA2 to repeat the
operation steps. Although code key data is being stored, steps SA12 and
SA13 are silent with respect to storing other data to replace the secret data
that has been deleted (see ¶ [0036]). Kashiwada discloses that “[t]he secret
data is code key data, used for example as a key when performing code
processing (coding and decoding)” (¶ [0030]). Thus, step SA12 actually
discloses storing the secret data (i.e., code key data) in the secret data
storage region 17a, and not deleting it or replacing it with replacement data
including one or more null values.
We find that Kashiwada discloses determining whether a predefined
number of accesses is reached (¶¶ [0003]-[0005]), and if so, making the
secret data (i.e., code key data) inaccessible by deleting it (see ¶¶ [0005] and
[0012]), not replacing it with replacement data including one or more null
values, as set forth in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument
that the Examiner has not shown the step of determining whether a
predefined number of accesses is reached, and if so, making the consumable
data inaccessible by replacing the consumable data with replacement data
including one or more null values, as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and
dependent claims 2, 5-9, 11, 21, and 22.
Appeal 2009-011197
Application 11/290,895

6

CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11, 21, and 22.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11, 21, and 22
is reversed.

REVERSED

msc