Ex Parte Kearsey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 20, 2017

13873231 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2017)

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.
13/873,231 04/30/2013 Natascha Kearsey 88325-873700(031310US) 1005
51206 7590
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
oraclepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com
KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NATASCHA KEARSEY, CHRISTIAN EVANS,
MARTIN HOGG, PAOLO FRAGAPANE, and
STEVE CORBETT
Appeal 2017-006362
Application 13/873,2311
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 26-45. Appellants have previously canceled
claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Oracle International,
Corp. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-006362
Application 13/873,231
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to "a
method for generating queries, a query generator, and to an information
management system, in particular for use with relational databases." Spec.
12.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 26, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphases added to contested limitations):
26. A method for generating queries, the method comprising:
receiving, at a computer system, a query;
identifying, by the computer system, a first replaceable
token, a second replaceable token, and a third replaceable token
in the query, wherein:
the first replaceable token comprises a first alias that
designates a first instance of a first parameter,
the second replaceable token comprises a second alias
that designates a second instance of the first parameter;
the third replaceable token comprises the first alias that
designates a reuse of the first instance of a first parameter in
the query,
retrieving, by the computer system, a parameter
definition for the parameter from a plurality of parameter
definitions, wherein the parameter definition comprises a text
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Sept,
14, 2016); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb. 13, 2017); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 13, 2016); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Mar. 10, 2016); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed April
30, 2013).
2
Appeal 2017-006362
Application 13/873,231
prompt that requests an input providing a value for the
parameter;
generating, by the computer system, a first graphical user
interface (GUI) comprising the text prompt that requests an
input providing a value for the parameter;
receiving, by the computer system, and through the first
GUI, input representing a first value for the parameter;
replacing, by the computer system, the first replaceable
token and the third replaceable token in the query with the first
value for the parameter,
generating, by the computer system, a second GUI
comprising the text prompt that requests an input providing a
value for the parameter;
receiving, by the computer system, and through the first
GUI, input representing a second value of the parameter;
replacing, by the computer system, the second
replaceable token in the query with the second value for the
parameter; and
submitting, by the computer system, the query for
evaluation.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Black etal. ("Black") US 6,285,998 B1
Martinez-Guerra et al. ("Martinez") US 6,523,172 B1
Arnold etal. ("Arnold") US 2003/0200194 Al
Welcker et al. ("Welcker") US 2004/0158557 Al
Dettinger et al. ("Dettinger") US 2005/0234878 Al
Rick van der Lans, "Introduction to SQL: Mastering the Relational
Database Language," Pearson Education Ltd., 3d ed., 2000, pp. 32—34,
82-83, 129.
Sept. 4, 2001
Leb. 18,2003
Oct. 23, 2003
Aug. 12, 2004
Oct. 20, 2005
3
Appeal 2017-006362
Application 13/873,231
Rejections on Appeal3
R1. Claims 26, 29—31, 34, 37—39, 42, and 44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Black and
Welcker. Final Act. 3.
R2. Claims 27, 35, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Black, Welcker and Lans.
Final Act. 8.
R3. Claims 28 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Black, Welcker, Lans and
Arnold. Final Act. 10.
R4. Claims 32 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Black, Welcker, and Martinez.
Final Act. 10—11.
R5. Claims 33, 41, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Black, Welcker, and
Dettinger. Final Act. 11.
ISSUE
Appellants argue (App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2—6) the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 26, 34, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Black and Welcker is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the limitation of "replacing, by the computer system, the first
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 27, 28, 35, 36 and 43 under
35 U.S.C. 112(b). Ans. 2.
4
Appeal 2017-006362
Application 13/873,231
replaceable token and the third replaceable token in the query with the first
value for the parameter," as recited in claim 26?
ANALYSIS
Based upon our review of the record, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports particular arguments advanced by Appellants with respect
to claims 26, 34, and 42, for the specific reasons discussed below. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
Appellants contend:
Like Black, the claims recite a single query having multiple
replaceable tokens. However, while Black requires a separate
GUI input for each replaceable token, the claims recite
receiving a single "first value" from a single GUI, and replacing
both the first replaceable token and the third replaceable token
in the query with the first value. Black never replaces multiple
replaceable tokens with a single input. Instead, Black always
requires a separate GUI and separate input from the user for
each replaceable token, even replaceable tokens of the same
basic type. For example, the two "ask me" values in FIG. 10 of
Black both accept the same type of value, yet required distinct
inputs. Therefore, Black cannot teach or suggest replacing more
than one replaceable token with the same value/input as recited
by the claims.
App. Br. 12.
Appellants further contend there is no teaching that Black's "ask me"
values in the same query are linked to the same underlying parameter. Id.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We find the Examiner's
citations to Black (Final Act. 4—5, citing Black Figs. 6, 10, col. 6,11. 19-30,
col. 7,11. 45—48, col. 8,11. 1—3, col. 7,11. 1—2) do not teach or suggest the
disputed limitation "replacing, by the computer system, the first replaceable
5
Appeal 2017-006362
Application 13/873,231
token and the third replaceable token in the query with the first value for the
parameter," as recited in claim 26. We also find the Examiner's expanded
citations to Black in the Answer (Ans. 3—7, Black, col. 5, 47—55, 62—67, col.
6, 1—2, col. 8, 25—30) are silent regarding replacing the first and third
replaceable tokens in the query with the first value for the parameter.
We, therefore, agree with Appellants that Black does not teach or
suggest "replacing, by the computer system, the first replaceable token and
the third replaceable token in the query with the first value for the
parameter," as claimed. App. Br. 12.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
persuaded of at least one error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior
art combination to teach or suggest the dispositive limitation of claim 26,
such that we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of
obviousness. Thus, for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants
{id.), we reverse the Examiner's obviousness Rejection R1 of independent
claim 26, and also of independent claims 34 and 42, which recite this
limitation in commensurate form. We also reverse Rejection R1 of claims
29-31, 37—39, and 44 that variously depend from these independent claims.
In light of our reversal of the rejection of independent claims 26, 34,
and 42, supra, we also reverse obviousness Rejection R2 through R5 under
§ 103 of claims 27—33, 35—41, and 43—45, which variously and ultimately
depend from claims 26, 34, and 42. On this record, the Examiner has not
shown how the additionally cited secondary Lans, Arnold, Martinez, and
Dettinger references overcome the aforementioned deficiencies of the
combination of Black and Welcker, as discussed above regarding claim 26.
6
Appeal 2017-006362
Application 13/873,231
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejections Rl—R5 of
claims 26-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations
of record, and we do not sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 26-45.
REVERSED
7