Ex Parte Labrie

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 13, 2009

09221542 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 13, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JACQUES JOSEPH LABRIE
____________________

Appeal 2008-1665
Application 09/221,5421
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: January 13, 2009
____________________

Before: JEAN R. HOMERE, JAY P. LUCAS and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals from a final rejection of claims 1 to 28 under
authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Application filed December 28, 1998. Appellant claims the benefit under
35 U.S.C. § 119 of provisional application 60/072,550, filed 1/26/1998. The
real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation.

Appeal 2008-1665
Application 09/221,542

Appellant’s invention relates to a method (and system and computer
program) for tracing back the source data that was used to generate selected
target data while searching in a database tree structure. In the words of the
Appellant:
The subject system provides users with a tree structure (p. 5, l.
8) that represents the data the users wish to view. The system allows
users to select any data that they want to access (p. 5, l. 9) which can
be anywhere on the tree. If the users have questions about how the
data they are looking at was derived, the users navigate the
information catalog via the tree structure to see any “transformations”
that were applied to generate the data. From this point, the users can
continue with their data analysis or continue to follow the lineage by
looking at the metadata about the source data. The present system
enables users to drill from the target warehouse data back to the
original source data and learn how the target warehouse data was
derived.

Accordingly, the present system is especially advantageous in
that it is used to describe a process applied to data. More particularly,
the present system describes to users querying the system the
transformation of data as it moves in a data warehouse. Moreover, the
system defines the lineage of data. That is, the system indicates to the
user what the sources for the warehouse were and/or the
modification(s) that resulted in the current state of data and enables
the user to navigate the data (p. 5, l. 10, 11).

(Brief, p. 6, middle).

Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of navigating data stored on a data storage device
connected to a computer, comprising the steps of:

2
Appeal 2008-1665
Application 09/221,542

in response to receiving input from a user navigating a plurality of
data objects stored in an Information catalog, selecting a target data object in
the information catalog; and

providing information about source data from which the target data
object was derived via a transformation performed on said source data to
derive said target data object.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Alston, Jr. US 5,315,709 May 24, 1997

REJECTION
Claims 1 to 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for being
anticipated by Alston.
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
by Alston for failure of the reference to teach the claimed limitations, as
understood in the applications. The Examiner responds that each of the
claims is properly rejected, as broadly but fairly interpreted.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. We have
considered in this opinion only those arguments actually made by Appellant.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived.
We affirm the rejection.
3
Appeal 2008-1665
Application 09/221,542

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The issue turns on whether
Alston teaches the target data objects are related to the source data objects as
required by the claims, as well as other claim limitations.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following finding of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Appellant has invented a method (system, apparatus) for assisting a user
to conveniently search for data objects (e.g. records) stored in a data
catalog system. (Spec., p. 7, l .23). To assist a user to “drill down”
through a subject area, the catalog system supports what is called a
Transformation Lineage Model. (Spec., p. 9). Using this model, and the
metadata behind the data objects, the user can find the source data from
which higher level target data was derived. (Spec., p. 10, top).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
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, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
4
Appeal 2008-1665
Application 09/221,542

“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at
issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc.,
190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999)
All of the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they
fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. The use of patents as references
is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the
problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of
the art, relevant for all they contain. In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009
(CCPA 1968). ) (citing In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966)
The analysis begins with an interpretation of the claims: “Both
anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103 are two-step inquiries.
The first step in both analyses is a proper construction of the claims . . . .
The second step in the analyses requires a comparison of the properly
construed claim to the prior art.” Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 353 F.3d
928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989) that “claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow.” Our reviewing court further states that "the words of a claim 'are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.'" Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations
omitted).

5
Appeal 2008-1665
Application 09/221,542

ANALYSIS
From our review of the administrative record, we find that the
Examiner has presented a prima facie case for the rejections of Appellant’s
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The prima facie case is presented on pages
3 to 6 of the Examiner’s Answer. In opposition, Appellant presents a
number arguments.
Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 1 to 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Alston teaches a system, method and device for transforming objects
in a first data model, which he calls source design objects, to objects in a
second design model. (See Abstract, and Col. 10, top). Alston’s purpose is
to facilitate searching for objects (files, data, etc.) in a catalog of items #46
on a mainframe #26, where the database structure of the objects on the
mainframe is built in the relational data models of the well-known database
management system DB2. (Col. 2, l. 9-12). However, the user manages the
database (retrieving, storing, modifying records) (Col. 1, l. 36-41) by the
keyboard #22 and display devices #12 attached to a personal desktop system
using a totally different data model, built around the proprietary Bachman
Analyst system. (Col. 1, l. 60-65). This data model is very different from
the DB2 model, and uses an entity relationship structure. Clearly in order
for the user at the Bachman system #10 to effectively manage the data on the
mainframe #26, the different data models (called design spaces) of the
Bachman and the DB2 platforms must be able to transform objects back and
forth. The Alston patent is mainly involved in transforming the data objects
6
Appeal 2008-1665
Application 09/221,542

from one design space, called the source design space with source design
objects (SDOs) to the target design space with target design objects (TDOs).
This transformation between design spaces can go in either direction, DB2
to or from Bachman, and is sometimes called “engineering” in the patent.
(Col. 9, l. 45; Col 10, l. 59). The transformation in Alston is arranged by a
mapping process between the design spaces. (See Figure 3A). Objects
(SDOs) in the Source Design Space #50 are mapped by system and user
maps M1, M2 etc. to objects (TDOs) in the Target Design Space #60. By
this mapping for each target object you can find the source object from
which it is derived.
Appellant indicates that the thrust of the Alston invention is different
from that of the instant application. (Br., p. 13, middle). This difference is
best appreciated by looking at Appellant’s Figure 6, where the target data
object #610 is labeled “Sum of Cost by location”, and is the sum of the
source data objects #612 (Finance.cost Boston) plus Finance.Cost NewYork
plus Finance.Cost Pittsburgh and so forth. In this example, Appellant
indicates that he meant the concept of the target data object #610 being the
transformation (sum) of the individual source data objects Boston, NY,
Pittsburgh etc. from which the sum is derived. (Spec., p. 11, l. 20+). We
notice this conceptualized in the last paragraph of claim 1.
However, on Examination in the USPTO the claims may be broadly
but fairly interpreted, and the Examiner in making this rejection has pointed
out that the language of the claims read on the Alston patent, and thus the
claims are anticipated by it. (See In re Zeltz, cited above.)
7
Appeal 2008-1665
Application 09/221,542

Appellant demurs to the reading, which objection is the heart of the
appeal. We now consider representative claim 1.
Alston’s user employs the keyboard # 22 and display #12 to “store,
retrieve, and modify aggregations of data items, data records, and data
relationships.” (Col 1, l. 38-39). The common meaning of navigating data
would include the selection process inherent in performing these functions,
especially retrieval of the data such as Customers and Names as mentioned
in the patent. (Col. 3, l. 39-44). The claim requires a plurality of data
objects stored in an information catalog. The DB2 database catalog #46 is
said to contain complex multi-object information. (Col 3, l. 36-37). The
claim requires the navigating user to provide input resulting in the selection
of an object from the information catalog. Alston’s system is used for the
retrieval, storage and modification of target data records by a user. (Col. 1,
l. 36-41). Finally, the claim requires that the system provide information
about source data from which the target data object was derived. In
formulating the SQL query #16, the system #10 provides target data to be
used in retrieving objects from the catalog #46. Data maps M1, M2 etc.
(Fig. 3A, col. 11, l. 38+) provide a link to the source data from which the
target data was derived.
Appellant argues that Alston is a “moving forward” system wherein
objects are transformed from a first data model to a second data model, and
does not permit providing information about source data from which a
selected target data object was derived. (Br., p. 16, bottom). On the
contrary, Alston provides the mapping, to which we averred above. The
8
Appeal 2008-1665
Application 09/221,542

mapping as expressed in Figures 3A or 3B provide information on the
transformation from the target data objects back to the source data objects
from which the target objects were derived.
Appellant argues that Alston does not provide navigation of the target
data. (Br., p. 17, middle). As mentioned above, we find navigation of the
target data an inherent part of retrieval, storage and modification of the data.
Appellant makes other distinctions between the disclosed system of
Appellant and the Alston system, such as allowing users to access data
derived from any number of database sources on one or more data
processing nodes. (Br., p. 19, top, bottom). However, these distinctions are
not reflected in the claims before us.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 to 28.

DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
Affirmed.

9
Appeal 2008-1665
Application 09/221,542

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc

RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP
38210 Glenn Avenue
WILLOUGHBY OH 44094-7808
10