Ex Parte Schmitt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2013

10854168 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2013)

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.
10/854,168 05/27/2004 Winfried Schmitt 07781.0122-00 7252
60668 7590 09/10/2013
SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
HO, BINH VAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WINFRIED SCHMITT, HELMUT HOFMANN, and
ANDREAS BALZAR
____________________

Appeal 2011-001842
Application 10/854,168
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MARC S. HOFF, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001842
Application 10/854,168

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a systems and
methods for combining database tables. Spec. ¶ [001].

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented data processing method for
processing data stored in a data warehouse storage system,
comprising the steps performed by a computer of:
providing a set of database tables;
receiving a selection, from a user interface, of a first and
a second database table from the set of database tables, the first
database table including a first plurality of entries associated
with a first entry type, the first plurality of entries including a
first entry, the second database table including a second
plurality of entries associated with a second entry type, the
second plurality of entries including a second entry;
receiving a manual selection of a user, from the user
interface, of the first entry and the second entry to form a
combination entry, the first entry and the second entry being
entries of the first and second entry types, respectively;
storing a combination database table in a storage device,
the combination database table including a first column of the
first entry type and a second column of the second entry type;
Appeal 2011-001842
Application 10/854,168

3
storing, based on the manual selection, the combination
entry in the combination database table, wherein the first entry
of the combination entry is stored in the first column and the
second entry of the combination entry is stored in the second
column; and
providing an application program for processing the set
of database tables and the combination database table.

References
Bloom US 6,732,353 B1 May 4, 2004

Roger Jennings, Special Edition Using Microsoft Access 2002, Chapter 11,
Joining Tables to Create Multitable Queries and Chapter 2, Displaying Data
with Queries and Views, (2001). (Hereinafter Access).
Materialized View Concepts and Architecture, Oracle9i Advanced
Replication, Release 2 (9.2), copyright 1996, 2002. (Hereinafter
Materialized View).

Rejections
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Access, Materialized View, and Bloom.
Ans. 4-11.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the combination of Bloom, Access, and
Materialized View does not teach “receiving a manual selection of a user,
from the user interface, of the first entry and the second entry to form a
combination entry, the first entry and the second entry being entries of the
Appeal 2011-001842
Application 10/854,168

4
first and second entry types” or “storing, based on the manual selection, the
combination entry in the combination database table, wherein the first entry
of the combination entry is stored in the first column and the second entry of
the combination entry is stored in the second column,” as recited in
independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 14.
App. Br. 12-15. Specifically, Appellants argue Bloom’s teachings related to
object view definitions do not “constitute or suggest forming an entry in a
combination database table.” App. Br. 14 (emphasis in original). Appellants
further argue Materialized View discusses using a snapshot to replicate and
cache data and “does not teach or suggest that a combination entry is stored,
based on a manual selection, in a combination database table.” App. Br. 15
(citing Materialized View p. 1) (emphasis in original). Further, Appellants
assert the combination of Bloom with Materialized View is improper
“because the ‘object view definition’ in Bloom characterizes how to render
objects for display, but does not constitute storing the data in a combination
database table,” rendering Bloom’s object view definition incompatible for
combination with Materialized View. App. Br. 15.
The Examiner finds Appellants arguments are improperly attacking
the references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. Ans. 12. Specifically, the Examiner points out:
As indicated in the rejection of claim 1, Bloom and
Materialized View are combined to reject the limitation being
argued. Bloom is relied on for teaching “receiving a manual
selection of a user, from the user interface, of the first entry
and the second entry to form a combination entry, the first
entry and the second entry being entries of the first and second
entry types, respectively”, whereas Materialized View is relied
on for teaching “storing a combination database table in a
storage device” and “storing the combination entry in the
Appeal 2011-001842
Application 10/854,168

5
combination database table”. Accordingly, it is not necessary
to show that the combination entry of Bloom is formed in a
combination database table, only that it is formed. The act of
storing the combination entry in a combination database table
is taught by Materialized View.

Ans. 11-12.
Therefore, the Examiner finds Appellants’ arguments that Bloom does
not teach forming an entry in a combination database table and that
Materialized View does not teach storing a combination entry in a
combination database table are inapposite. Ans. 11-12. The Examiner finds
the recited limitation requires only a teaching “that a user selects two things
of different types and they are combined in some way.” Ans. 12. The
Examiner finds Appellants’ Brief acknowledges entries of different types are
selected by a user and that those two entries are subsequently “combined for
display,” meeting the recited limitation. Ans. 12; See Ans. 6 (citing Bloom
col. 9 ll. 60-66). With respect to Appellants’ argument that Bloom is
incompatible with Materialized View, the Examiner finds “[b]oth references
are relied on for teaching techniques regarding database views” and
Appellants have not provided a reason as to why the views in each reference
would not be compatible. Ans. 13.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments attack the
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. In addition to the arguments the Examiner points out, Appellants
repeat the same argument regarding Bloom and Materialized View in their
Reply Brief. Reply 2-4. In particular, Appellants argue that Bloom does not
“suggest forming a combination entry in a combination database table.”
Reply 3 (emphasis removed and added). However, as explained by the
Appeal 2011-001842
Application 10/854,168

6
Examiner, Bloom is not relied upon for storing the combination entry in a
combination database table. Ans. 11-12. Appellants also restate their
argument that “Materialized View does not teach or suggest that a
combination entry is stored, based on a manual selection, in a combination
database table.” Reply 3 (emphasis removed and added). Once again, as
explained by the Examiner, Materialized View is not relied upon for
combining entries into a combination entry upon manual selection. Ans. 13.
Rather, Materialized View is merely relied upon for teaching storing the
combination entry in the combination database table. Ans. 13.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding the respective
teachings of the cited references as well as the Examiner’s construction of
Appellants’ claims. We further agree with the finding that Bloom teaches
receiving a user’s selection of two entries of different types that are
combined into a single entry, as seen displayed in Figure 6 of Bloom.
Finally, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Materialized View
teaches storing a combination entry in a combination database table, giving
the terms their broadest reasonable construction consistent with Appellants’
Specification.
We find Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or
argument to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
teachings of Materialized View, the application of those teachings to
Appellants claims, or the combination of those teachings with Bloom.
Appellants have merely stated a general purpose of Materialized View and
alleged that Materialized View does not teach the recited limitation. The
Examiner has made a finding with respect to what is taught by Materialized
View relevant to the recited language and provided a reason for combining
Appeal 2011-001842
Application 10/854,168

7
the references. Appellants have not apprised us of error in these findings;
thus, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 14. Appellants
do not present an argument for dependent claims 3-8, 10-13, and 15-29,
other than their dependency on one of claims 1, 8, and 14. Therefore, we
also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3-8, 10-13, and 15-29.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-
14, and 16-29 is affirmed.

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).

ELD