Ex Parte Kojima et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 8, 2010

10606184 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 8, 2010)

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.
10/606,184 06/26/2003 Kazuhito Kojima 21776-00033-US1 1598
30678 7590 11/08/2010
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
1875 EYE STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
LIN, SHEW FEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2010 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 KAZUHITO KOJIMA, MITSURU YOSHIKURA, and
HIROMOTO UESUGI
____________________

Appeal 2009-0052031
Application 10/606,184
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAY P. LUCAS, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 Filed June 26, 2003. The real party in interest is NS Solutions Corp. (App.
Br. 2.)
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-005203
Application 10/606,184

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 7-11. Claims 2-6 have been
canceled. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method of retrieving real data in a distributed
database by using metadata associated therewith. In particular, the disclosed
method allows a user (10) to copy from a database server (30) to a metadata
database server (40) metadata that summarize the contents and locations of
distributed databases (20) having real data such that the user can
immediately obtain information about the databases (20) without being
directly connected thereto. (Fig. 2, spec. 24.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A method of data retrieval by a user from a distributed
database, comprising:

saving metadata pertaining to real data stored in
databases distributed on a network in first servers distributed on
the network associated with each of said databases;

collecting metadata saved in said first servers and storing
said metadata in a metadata database of a second server without
storing the real data represented by said metadata;

Appeal 2009-005203
Application 10/606,184

3
extracting metadata that matches a user retrieval request
from a user terminal by searching metadata stored in said
metadata database, and transmitting a retrieval result including
information of a location of the first server saving the metadata
that matches said user retrieval request, to said user terminal;

inputting a real data retrieval condition for the database
on the basis of the retrieval result of the metadata database
transmitted to said user terminal;

issuing a real data retrieval condition from said user
terminal to the first server on the basis of said information of a
location of the first server;

wherein said real data retrieval condition is issued to said
first server by bypassing said second server; and

retrieving, by the first server, the real data from the
corresponding database after converting said real data retrieval
condition into a format which is concordant with the database.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Brown 5,913,208 Jun. 15, 1999
Syeda-Mahmood 5,920,856 Jul. 6, 1999
Belfiore 6,038,610 Mar. 14, 2000
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Syeda-Mahmood, Belfiore, and
Brown.
Appeal 2009-005203
Application 10/606,184

4
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the proffered combination does not teach or
suggest the steps of (1) “saving metadata pertaining to real data stored in
databases distributed on a network in first servers distributed on the network
associated with each of said databases,” (2) “collecting metadata saved in
said first servers and storing said metadata in a metadata database of a
second server without storing the real data represented by said metadata”,
and (3) “wherein said real data retrieval condition is issued to said first
server by bypassing said second server” as recited in independent claim 1.
(App Br. 10-15, Reply Br. 5-9.)
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Syeda-Mahmood’s disclosure of a meta
server that maintains real data and metadata information for different
databases teaches saving metadata associated with real data for the
distributed databases, as recited in independent claim 1. (Ans. 8.) Further,
the Examiner finds that Belfiore’s disclosure of storing sitemap files at
servers that hold real data teaches storing at a second server metadata
associated with real data. (Ans. 9.) Last, the Examiner finds that Brown’s
disclosure of accessing a database index located on a search server or on
another computer on the same network teaches the limitation of a first server
issuing a real data retrieval condition thereby bypassing a second server.
(Id.)

Appeal 2009-005203
Application 10/606,184

5
II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Syeda-Mahmood, Belfiore, and Brown teaches any of the
following limitations: (1) “saving metadata pertaining to real data stored in
databases distributed on a network in first servers distributed on the network
associated with each of said databases,” (2) “ collecting metadata saved in
said first servers and storing said metadata in a metadata database of a
second server without storing the real data represented by said metadata”,
and (3) “wherein said real data retrieval condition is issued to said first
server by bypassing said second server”, as recited in independent claim 1?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Syeda-Mahmood
1. Syeda-Mahmood discloses a centralized web server (2) that
interfaces with one or more web clients (3) and a plurality of database sites
(1). In particular, the web server (2) includes a search agent (5) that indexes
in a meta database (item 4, also contained in the web server) information
about the database sites (1) along with queries received from the clients.
The queries are then distributed to the database sites (1) to thereby retrieve
requested information, which is used to subsequently update the meta
database. (Figs. 1-2, Abstract, col. 5, ll. 14-37.)

Appeal 2009-005203
Application 10/606,184

6
Belfiore
2. Belfiore discloses a server (30) that uses sitemap files (34) for
storing therein web page content information and search result information
pertaining to web documents at the server site. (Fig. 2, col. 1, ll. 31-38, col.
2, ll. 66-67, col. 4, ll. 4-39.)
3. Belfiore also discloses a web browser (17) residing on a client
computer (10) uses web crawler programs to extract contents from
designated sitemap files to thereby create a hierarchical index of available
web pages at the web server site. (Col. 12, ll. 57-67.)
4. In an alternative embodiment, Belfiore discloses that
information previously extracted from a sitemap file can be downloaded to a
client for persistent storage. (Col. 4, ll. 44-50.)

Brown
5. Brown discloses a search server arranged on a network in such
a way that the search server only needs to access a database index residing
same computer as the search server or on any other computer on the network
to retrieve requested data. (Col. 2, ll. 18-26.)

IV. ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, collecting metadata saved in
first servers and storing the collected metadata in a metadata database of a
second server without storing the real data represented by the collected
metadata. (Br. 17, Claims App’x.)
Appeal 2009-005203
Application 10/606,184

7
As set forth in the Findings of Fact section, Syeda-Mahmood
discloses a web server having a web agent for storing and indexing in a meta
database metadata for a plurality of distributed databases along with query
requests submitted by clients to thereby retrieve requested information from
the databases, and to subsequently update the meta database. (FF. 1.)
Belfiore complements the Syeda-Mahmood’s system by disclosing using
sitemaps in a web server site to store webpage content information and
search results, which a web crawler can subsequently extract to create a
hierarchical index of web pages available at the web server site, or which
can be downloaded on the client device for local access. (FF. 2-4)
Additionally, Brown discloses a web server configured on a network such
that it only needs to access a data index on any computer on the network in
order to retrieve requested data. (FF. 5.) We find that the combined
disclosures of Syeda-Mahmood, Belfiore and Brown teach, at best, storing at
a first web server metadata associated with a plurality of databases, and
storing/indexing at a second web server hierarchically indexed files
(obtained from meta data and search results (real data) associated with
requested queries extracted from specified sitemap files), wherein said
indexed files can be accessed from any computer on the network. However,
while the proffered combination teaches or suggests storing the specified
index files or metadata at a second server, we note that the second server
also stores real data, which the disputed claim limitation explicitly precludes
as emphasized above. Consequently, we find that the proffered combination
does not teach or suggest, at least the disputed limitation set forth above.
Appeal 2009-005203
Application 10/606,184

8
Since Appellants have shown at least one error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, we need not address Appellants’ other arguments. It
therefore follows that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of Syeda-Mahmood, Belfiore, and Brown
renders independent claim 1 unpatentable.

Since claims 7-11 recite the limitations of claim 1 discussed above,
we find that Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims for the same reasons set forth above.

V. SUMMARY
Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Syeda-Mahmood, Belfiore, and Brown. We therefore reverse
this rejection.

REVERSED

Vsh

CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
1875 EYE STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON DC 20006