Ex Parte Djugash et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 26, 2010

10901591 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte JUDY I. DJUGASH, TRAVIS M. DRUCKER, and HOA T. TRAN
__________

Appeal 2009-006058
Application 10/901,591
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: April 26, 2010
__________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, STEPHEN C. SIU, and,
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 31-51. Claims 10-30 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2009-006058
Application 10/901,591

2
The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to data processing a
migrating data to a relational database (Spec. 1, ¶ [0002]).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer implemented method for creating a table
populated with information derived from an object oriented program
environment, comprising:
storing data structures in a relational database managed by a
relational database management system, the data structures containing
data related to entities and entity relationships in the object oriented
program environment;
storing a lookup table within the relational database; and
populating the lookup table within the relational database with
metadata of the entity relationships, wherein the metadata includes
descriptions of hierarchical relationships between the entities in the
entity relationships.

The Reference
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Egilsson US 6,970,874 B2 Nov. 29, 2005

The Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-9 and 31-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Egilsson.

Appeal 2009-006058
Application 10/901,591

3
ISSUE
Appellants assert that Egilsson fails to disclose “data structures
containing data related to entity and entity relationships in the object-
oriented programming environment” (App. Br. 11).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Egilsson discloses data structures
containing data related to entities and entity relationships in the object
oriented program environment as recited in claims 1, 32, and 42?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Egilsson discloses “an online syntheses programming technique for
multidimensional analysis” (col. 13, ll. 11-12).
2. Egilsson discloses a hypercube structure that “has access to a set of
calculated relations 705 in the form of functions accepting . . .
dimensions in the hypercube” (col. 13, ll. 29-31).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

Appeal 2009-006058
Application 10/901,591

4
ANALYSIS
As described above, Egilsson discloses an “online syntheses
programming technique” for “enforcing relations describing formulas . . .
connecting the dimensions in a hypercube” (col. 13, ll. 11-19). Claim 1
recites a data structure containing data related to entities and relationships in
an object oriented program environment. While the Examiner finds that
Egilsson discloses an “online synthesis program technique” and “calculated
relations” (Ans. 7), the Examiner has not demonstrated how these findings
relate to an object oriented program environment or how the claimed entities
and entity relationships (in the object oriented program environment) relate
to, much less anticipate, the formulas that connect “the dimensions in a
hypercube” of Egilsson.
Since under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a prior art reference must disclose “each
limitation of a claim,” Perricone, 432 F.3d at 1375, and the Examiner has
not demonstrated that Egilsson, in fact, discloses each limitation of claim 1,
we cannot agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Claim 32 and claim 42 recite similar features as claim 1.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 32, and 42, and claims 2-9, 31-41, and 43-51, which depend
therefrom.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in finding that Egilsson discloses data structures
Appeal 2009-006058
Application 10/901,591

5
containing data related to entities and entity relationships in the object
oriented program environment.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 31-51
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

REVERSED

msc

IBM CORPORATION
ROCHESTER IP LAW DEPT. 917
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829