Ex Parte Pintar et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 3, 2009

10718863 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 3, 2009)

1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte KEVIN M. PINTAR, KENNETH ZIERVOGEL, and
JAMES W. MAGILL
________________

Appeal 2008-004755
Application 10/718,863
Technology Center 2100
________________

Decided:1 June 3, 2009
________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JOSEPH L. DIXON, and
LANCE LEONARD BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

J. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-004755
Application 10/718,863

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 26, and 30, with claims 27 through 29 having
being withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Techniques to extract, or unload, data from a database table based on
a specific version of the table are described. Modern database management
systems permit a user to change a databases’ table structure or schema in
response to changing operating conditions without blocking users’ access to
the underlying table or its data. Once modified, these database management
systems permit data retrieval only in terms of a table’s most recent version.
Applications written to process a table’s data in a first version may not be
able to process data when that data is conformed to a later version. By
providing a means to extract data from a table based on prior versions of that
table, the invention permits users to evolve their database structure as needs
require, while maintaining the ability to unload data for historical
applications. (Abstract, Spec. 18, Figs. 1, 2)

Representative Claim
1. A database unload method, comprising:
receiving a request to extract data from a database table, the
database table having a current version associated with a current
schema of the database table and a prior version associated with a
prior schema of the database table, the request directed to the prior
version; and
Appeal 2008-004755
Application 10/718,863

3
extracting data from the database table based on the table schema
associated with the prior version.

Prior Art and Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
anticipation and unpatentability:
Hayashi US 5,881,378 Mar. 9, 1999
Herbert US 6,366,917 B1 Apr. 2, 2002

Claims 1 through 11, 14 through 24, and 30 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hayashi. The remaining claims on
appeal, claims 12, 13, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies upon Hayashi in view of
Herbert.
Claim Groupings
Based upon Appellants’ remarks at the bottom of the principal Brief
on appeal that “all claims stand or fall together,” we consider independent
claim 1 as a representative of the subject matter of independent claims 1, 14
and 30. Additionally, the dependent claims from these independent claims
are not separately argued within the Examiner’s stated rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102. Moreover, the additional rejection of certain dependent
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also not separately argued. In this regard,
according to the remarks at pages 9 and 10 of the principal Brief on appeal,
the dependent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are argued to rely for
patentability based upon the same arguments presented for their respective
parent independent claims. Therefore, no arguments are presented that
Herbert is not properly combinable with Hayashi and no arguments are
presented to contest what the Examiner alleges Herbert teaches.
Appeal 2008-004755
Application 10/718,863

4
ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Hayashi teaches “extracting data from the database table based on the table
schema associated with the prior version” as set forth at the end of
representative independent claim 1 on appeal?

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. Appellants’ discussion of the admitted prior art in Paragraph [0003]
states that the “overall organization or structure of a table is referred to as its
‘schema’. A schema defines the type and order of a table’s attributes
(columns), but does not speak to the data that may actually be stored in the
table.”
Continuing their discussion of the prior art, Specification Paragraph
[0006] states:
One approach to accommodating a changing schema is to
modify the affected applications. . . . Another approach is to
extract data from the versioned table, convert the data into a
format required by the “target” version (i.e., that version the
application was designed to operate with), load the converted
data into a temporary table and then run the application against
this temporary table.

Thus, running the application against this temporary table necessarily
includes the implied ability to extract data from this temporary table.
2. The title of Hayashi’s patent is “DEVICE ACCESSING A
DATABASE USING ONE OF OLD DEFINITION INFORMATION AND
NEW DEFINITION INFORMATION BASED ON AN ACCESS
REQUEST”. Ultimately, according to the end of Abstract of Hayashi, a
database definition management means eventually replaces an old version of
Appeal 2008-004755
Application 10/718,863

5
database definition information with a new version of it. As set forth in
Column 3, lines 59 through 61, Hayashi’s summary of invention indicates an
object of his invention is to “provide a way to easily realize a process where
an access of an application program to a plurality of databases is performed
as if it were an access to one database.”
3. Within the discussion of the prior art to Hayashi, the discussion
beginning at the middle of Column 2 indicates that defining a database
means interpreting the database to include modifying the definition of the
database. It is further indicated that data itself in the database maybe
frequently accessed and modified while the definition of the database is not
necessarily modified as frequently. Column 2, line 55 through Column 3,
line 2 states:
The usage of a database varies as time goes by. With the
fluctuation of the amount of data stored in a database, a storage
structure may be required to be modified. The change in the
importance of a database and the frequency of access requests
may require the modification of the storage structure.
A change in the real environment which reflects on the
logical structure of the database may require the modification of
the database itself. Simple examples are modification of a
column attribute (an eight-digit column must be extended to a
10 digit column due to an increases in numerical size and
increase of columns (FAX numbers as well as phone numbers
are required). Furthermore, addition or deletion of restrictions
for table integrity, and division or integration of a table may be
required.

Different definitions within Hayashi appear to yield different
schema within “a database.”

Appeal 2008-004755
Application 10/718,863

6
4. According to the discussion from Columns 7 through 10 of Hayashi,
various approaches from the prior art indicate the ability to access
independently developed, different databases with the same or different
schema associated therewith. This includes the statement at Column 7, lines
33 through 38 we reproduce here:
In the prior art technology, defined schemata are
integrated into one database to permit application programs to
share data, or defined schemata are organized into independent
divisional databases, with an application program prepared for
each division, to transmit data through common files.

The discussion across the noted columns indicates the ability to
simultaneously access between plural same or different databases with the
same or different schemas. Inclusive within this ability is the creation of
derived database where it is stated at Column 9, lines 38 through 40, that
“ [i]n the derived database, a plurality of databases can be simultaneously
accessed, thereby simplifying the process procedure.” It is further indicated
at Column 9, lines 54 through 56 that “[i]n the test system where a test is
conducted between a test database and a production database, a test may be
conducted using both databases simultaneously.”
With respect to Figure 7, we note the following discussion at Column
10, lines 14 through 27:
A derived database can be considered a view of a
database on a database level similar to a view of a table on a
table level.
As shown in FIG. 7, in the prior art technology, an
application program can access only one database at a time; for
example, an application program 30A can access a database
17A, and an application program 30B access a database 17B.
With a derived database, an application program 30C, for
example, accesses necessary parts of a plurality of databases
Appeal 2008-004755
Application 10/718,863

7
17A and 17B as a derived database 18. When the same table
name T exists in a plurality of databases, an alias such as T1 is
assigned to identify the table name uniquely.

With respect to Figure 10, Hayashi teaches at Column 15, lines 55
through 59:
As described above, the present embodiment permits an
application program to access a plurality of independent
databases, thus providing flexible services for diversified and
high level user requests. As an application program can access
a plurality of databases simultaneously,…

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over
the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope
of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications
not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim
must then be compared with the prior art.

Appeal 2008-004755
Application 10/718,863

8
Obviousness
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim
extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). To be nonobvious, an
improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” Id. at 417. Appellants have the
burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On
appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”)
(quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Therefore,
we look to Appellants’ Briefs to show error in the proffered prima facie
case.
ANALYSIS
With respect to the claimed “a database table” this recitation does not
necessarily require a single database table and a database itself may be
considered to be such a table. The claimed “current version” having a
“current schema” does not necessarily distinguish between the recited “prior
version” associated with a “prior schema” since both of the versions and the
schema are not recited to be different from each other.
As set forth both in the Brief and Reply Brief, Appellants recognize
that Hayashi teaches that plural databases may be considered as one
database, even as we noted in FF 2. This appears to be the case according to
Hayashi’s teachings with or without a derived database. Hayashi can be
construed to also teach that different databases, logically being considered as
Appeal 2008-004755
Application 10/718,863

9
one database, may be separately or simultaneously accessible, thus
permitting separate extractability of data from each of them. FF 3-4.
Given the earlier-noted artisan’s understanding of the breadth of the
subject matter of representative independent claim 1 on appeal, the
Examiner’s reliance upon the showings and Figures 11A, 15A, 15B, 17A,
17B permit the accessibility of separate databases logically considered as
one database necessarily using the same or different “schema” with
databases that have the same or different “versions”. Without the claimed
current and prior versions being claimed to be different from each other, and
without the current and prior schemas being claimed to be different from
each other in the claims on the appeal, there are plural perspectives among
the teachings of Hayashi that meet the subject matter of representative
independent claim 1 on appeal. Note FF 3-4. These even include a single
database that has been derived from the database definition management
means once an old database definition of a version has been replaced, and
therefore deleted, when the new definitional version is ultimately put in
place according to the latter teachings and showings in Hayashi and at the
end of the Abstract.
Moreover, as noted earlier, Hayashi considers plural databases as
logically one database. Thus, the artisan may well conclude, from the
Appellants’ recognition of prior art approaches noted in Specification page 6
which we reproduced in FF 1, that the noted versioned table and the
temporary table can be construed as a single table or “a database table” as
claimed to permit two different versions utilizing two different schemas to
be accessed, such as to be construed to meet the subject matter of
representative independent claim 1 on appeal.
Appeal 2008-004755
Application 10/718,863

10

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
prior art teaches the feature of extracting data from a database table based on
a table schema associated with a prior version.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of various claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
and 103, inclusive of all claims 1 through 26, and 30 on appeal, are affirmed.
All claims on appeal are unpatentable.
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)(v).

AFFIRMED

erc

WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI,
L.L.P.
20333 SH 249 6th Floor
HOUSTON, TX 77070