Ex Parte Medicke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2014

12251292 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN A. MEDICKE, FENG-WEI CHEN RUSSELL,
MICHAEL WILLIAM SMITH, and RAY ZHONG TAN
____________________

Appeal 2012-006622
Application 12/251,292
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 21–36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to a computer implemented method and data
processing system for identifying database triggers. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
21. A computer-implemented method to identify a database
trigger in a data processing system, comprising:
creating a database monitor for a specific application
event responsive to receiving a request to create the database
monitor for the specific application event;
responsive to receiving a request to monitor the specific
application event within a database, creating a replicate
database of the database;
identifying changes in the database associated with the
specific application event by comparing, after the specific
application event, the database to the replicate database; and
identifying a best candidate for a database trigger based
upon the identified changes in the database associated with the
specific application event.
Appeal 2012-006622
Application 12/251,292
3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 21–36 stand rejected on grounds of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over Medicke.1 Final Action 4.
2. Claims 21–26 and 31–36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zoltan2 and Jaramillo.3
3. Claims 27–30 are indicated to be directed to allowable subject
matter. Final Action 7.

The Examiner rejected claims 21–36 as unpatentable in view of
claims 1–10 of Medicke on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
double patenting. Final Action 4. Appellants submitted a terminal
disclaimer to overcome the rejection, but the Examiner refused to enter it,
finding it was not signed by an authorized party. Id. at 2.
Appellants have presented no arguments traversing the nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting rejection over Medicke, and the
Examiner’s refusal to enter Appellants’ terminal disclaimer is petitionable
rather than appealable. See MPEP § 1204.04 (2014) (“[A]n examiner’s
refusal to enter an amendment, evidence or other document is a petitionable
matter that is not subject to review by the Board.”). Appellants have instead
chosen to proceed, assuming “the rejection for nonstatutory obviousness-
type double patenting will be withdrawn.” App. Br. 5. The Examiner has
maintained “[e]very ground of rejection set forth in the Office action from
which the appeal is taken . . . except for the grounds of rejection (if any)

1 U.S. Patent No. 7,512,631 B2, issued Mar. 31, 2009
2 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20030158868 A1, published Aug. 21, 2003.
3 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20020196741 A1, published Dec. 26, 2002.
Appeal 2012-006622
Application 12/251,292
4
listed under the subheading ‘WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS’.” Ans. 3–4.
No such subheading appears in the Examiner’s Answer.
Consequently, because the Examiner’s nonstatutory double patenting
rejection is pending, and Appellants have not contested the merits of the
rejection, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–36 as
unpatentable over Medicke on nonstatutory obviousness-type double
patenting grounds. Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(“When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board. . . .
the PTO may affirm the rejection of the group of claims that the examiner
rejected on that ground without considering the merits of those rejections.”).

REJECTION OVER ZOLTAN AND JARAMILLO
Issue
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants’ contentions is as
follows:
Whether the combination of Zoltan and Jaramillo teaches or suggests
identifying a best candidate for a database trigger based upon identified
changes in a database associated with a specific application event, as recited
in claim 21.

Analysis
The Examiner finds Zoltan discloses database replication or
synchronization, or both, and using a database trigger to maintain a
replicated database. Final Action 5 (citing Zoltan ¶¶ 53–54, 83, and 84).
Moreover, the Examiner finds these disclosures teach or suggest identifying
a best candidate trigger based upon identified changes in a database in
response to a specific application event as recited in claim 21. Id.
Appeal 2012-006622
Application 12/251,292
5
Appellants argue that although paragraph 84 of Zoltan refers to
database triggers, Zoltan does not teach or suggest identifying triggers
“based upon the identified changes in the database associated with the
specific application event.” App. Br. 13. Moreover, Appellants argue
Zoltan fails to teach or suggest identifying “best candidates” or how to
identify “best candidates” for the triggers. Id.
The Examiner explains Zoltan discloses selecting a particular trigger
from among a number of different types of triggers (e.g., insert and update),
and therefore teaches or suggests identifying a “best candidate” trigger by
finding and executing the particular trigger. Ans. 9 (citing Zoltan ¶¶ 83–84).
Appellants argue that Zoltan’s teaching that “a trigger could go into effect
when a user attempts to modify data with an insert, delete, or update
command” does not establish that “the trigger is identified as a best
candidate based upon changes in the database associated with the specific
application event.” Reply Br. 9 (citing Zoltan ¶ 84) (emphasis added). We
find Appellants’ argument persuasive.
Although Zoltan teaches selecting a particular trigger from among a
number of different types of triggers— which the Examiner could
reasonably interpret as identifying a best candidate trigger—Zoltan teaches
selecting the particular trigger based on the type of application event
executed on the database (e.g., an insertion or deletion event) rather than
upon the changes made to the database as a result of executing the
application event as recited in claim 21. We therefore do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zoltan and
Jaramillo, or of claims 22 and 23 which depend from claim 21.
Moreover, since independent claims 24 and 34 contain limitations
similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 21, we do not sustain
Appeal 2012-006622
Application 12/251,292
6
the rejection of claims 24 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zoltan and
Jaramillo, or of the claims that depend from them, for the same reasons as
claim 21.

DECISION
For the reasons noted above:
1. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–36 on obviousness-type
double patenting grounds over Medicke is summarily affirmed.
2. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–26 and 31–36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zoltan and Jaramillo is reversed.

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

AFFIRMED

llw