Ex Parte Pang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2012

11306852 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2012)

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.
11/306,852 01/12/2006 Francis Pang 1933.1710000 1851
82515 7590 07/30/2012
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
EXAMINER
KOO, GARY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2012 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 FRANCIS PANG, OLWEN TAM,
KANNAN ANANTHANARAYANAN, and
ELENA I. LORA-GALLARDO
____________

Appeal 2010-002208
Application 11/306,8521
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Application filed January 12, 2006. The real party in interest is Sybase,
Inc. (Br. 3.)
Appeal 2010-002208
Application 11/306,852

2
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates generally to the field of data processing
and, more particularly, to system and methodology providing message-based
connectivity for databases. (Spec. 1:4-6.)2
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. In a database system, a method for providing real-time message
support for improved database connectivity, the method comprising:
defining Structured Query Language (SQL) extensions having
commands that provide message-based connectivity for databases;
receiving an SQL statement for execution by the database
system that employs at least one of said SQL extension commands for
specifying that a message be sent for communicating particular
database data;
upon execution of said SQL statement by the database system,
creating an outbound message for communicating said particular
database data to a destination; and
posting said outbound database to a message bus, whereupon
said particular database data is communicated asynchronously to the
destination.

Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-29 and 37-42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wolfson (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
2004/0068479 A1, published Apr. 8, 2004). (Ans. 3-17.)

2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal Brief (“Br.”)
filed January 20, 2009. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed June 22, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002208
Application 11/306,852

3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 24 and 30-36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wolfson and Hussey (U.S. Patent No.
5,826,269, issued Oct. 20, 1998). (Ans. 17-22. )
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of representative claims 1 and 24. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal:
Under § 102, did the Examiner err in finding that Chen describes
“defining Structured Query Language (SQL) extensions having commands
that provide message-based connectivity for databases” within the meaning
of independent claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office
Action as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or
set aside in the Analysis that follows.

ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection
At the outset, we note that Appellants’ arguments essentially contain
statements describing the invention and the apparent advantages of the
Appeal 2010-002208
Application 11/306,852

4
present invention over the prior art (See e.g. Br. 11-17 and 18-20.) and a
recitation of the claim language and conclusion that “s]uch features are not
taught or suggested by the prior art, and certainly not Wolfson.” (Br. 19.)
We find such arguments availing in determining if the present invention is
anticipated by the prior art of record.3 We agree with the Examiner’s
assessment that these arguments do not address the claim limitations. (Ans.
22.)
Appellants contend, “Wolfson simply contains no teaching or
suggestion that the database server provides built-in SQL extensions
supporting message-based connectivity for the database.” (Br. 17.) We
disagree for the reasons discussed infra.
The Examiner interpreted the claimed “Structured Query Language
(SQL) extensions” as extensions using SQL. (Ans. 23.) The Examiner
further asserted that “Wolfson teaches the use of SQL scriptlets and
asynchronous messaging to extend functionality of an existing RDBMS.”
(Id. (emphasis added).)
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed
“Structured Query Language (SQL) extensions,” and find that the Examiner
broadly but reasonably construed the claimed SQL extensions, in light of
Appellants’ Specification. (See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000))).
Moreover, we find that an “extension” as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention, is defined as
“[a] program or program module that adds functionality to or extends the

3 See Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843 at *3-4 (BPAI
Aug. 10, 2009) (informative); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-002208
Application 11/306,852

5
effectiveness of the program.” (Microsoft Press, COMPUTER DICTIONARY
203 (5th ed. 2002)). Therefore, we find the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claimed SQL extensions, to be reasonable, in the absence of an express
definition of the phrase in Appellants’ Specification. Further, we note that
Appellants failed to file a Reply Brief to rebut the findings and responsive
arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer.
In line with the above discussion, we do not find Appellants’
argument – Wolfson simply contains no teaching or suggestion that the
database server provides built-in SQL extensions supporting message-based
connectivity for the database – to be persuasive.
Based on this record, Appellants did not prove that the Examiner erred
in rejecting representative claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-29 and 37-42.
Obviousness Rejection
Appellants essentially argue that Hussey fails to cure the deficiencies
of Wolfson. (Br. 19-21.) We note that the Examiner relied upon Hussey to
teach or suggest the language syntax includes a “message send” command
for sending outbound messages. (Ans. 17.)
Thus, Appellants have urged the patentability of claims 24 and 30-36
based on the arguments for independent claim 1 which were discussed above
and not found to be persuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the § 103 rejection
of claims 24 and 30-36 for the reasons discussed supra.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-29 and 37-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appeal 2010-002208
Application 11/306,852

6
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
24 and 30-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-29 and 37-42 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 30-36 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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