Ex Parte Schneider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2018

13679259 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/679,259 11/16/2012
50400 7590 06/28/2018
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Thomas Schneider
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2058.720US 1 6674
EXAMINER
GOFMAN,ALEXN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS SCHNEIDER and CHRISTIAN CONRADI
Appeal2018-000944
Application 13/679,259
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-000944
Application 13/679,259
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method comprising:
triggering processing of a query, received from a client
device, for a result set, the query including a filter attribute
that is absent from a base table from which the result set is to
be obtained;
calculating on-the-fly, from data in the base table and by
a processor of a machine, a set of measures associated with the
filter attribute that is absent from the base table;
generating an extended table, the generating
comprising incorporating the calculated set of measures
calculated on-the-fly from the data in the base table and
associated with the filter attribute that is absent from the base
table as one or more new columns in the base table, the
generating being a result of joining the calculated set of
measures with one or more master data tables arranged around
and joined to the base table in a star schema, the one or more
master data tables comprising a set of data that defines persisted
information related to the calculated set of measures;
creating a filtered extended table, the creating
comprising filtering, using the on-the-fly calculated set of
measures included in the extended table as filters, the extended
1 Herein, we refer to the Specification, filed Nov. 16, 2012 ("Spec."); Final
Office Action, mailed Nov. 30, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed May
26, 2017 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer, mailed Sept. 7, 2017 ("Ans.");
and the Reply Brief, filed Nov. 6, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-000944
Application 13/679,259
table to determine filter-satisfying rows of data in the
extended table;
deriving the result set for the query using the filter-
satisfying rows in the filtered extended table; and
providing the derived result set to the client device.
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Diehl (US 2013/0290250 Al; published Oct. 31, 2013)
("Diehl"), Rob Gravelle, Use Derived Tables in Your MySQL Queries to
Improve Database Performance, Database Journal (Dec. 3, 2010),
http://www. databasej oumal.com/features/mysql/ article. php/3914401/U se-
Derived-Tables-in-Your-M ySQ L-Queries-to-Improve-Database-
Performance.htm ("Gravelle"), and Bestgen et al. (US 2007 /0027860 Al;
published Feb. 1, 2007) ("Bestgen"). 2
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
2 The patentability of claims 2-20 is not separately argued from that of claim
1. See App. Br. 12. Thus, with respect to this rejection, except for our
ultimate decision, claims 2-20 are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2018-000944
Application 13/679,259
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
A claim under examination is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the underlying specification. See In re
American Acad. of Science Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In the absence of an express definition of a claim term in the specification or
a clear disclaimer of scope, the claim term is interpreted as broadly as the
ordinary usage of the term by one of ordinary skill in the art would permit.
See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Though understanding the claim language may be aided by
the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. See
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Obviousness
The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim
does not establish non-obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219,
230 (1976). Instead, the relevant question is "whether the difference
between the prior art and the subject matter in question is a [difference]
sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in
the applicable art." Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering
obviousness, "the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
4
Appeal2018-000944
Application 13/679,259
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Further, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Diehl teaches a project management system
that provides a user with project management data in response to a query.
See Final Act. 5 (citing Diehl i-fi-f 15, 30). As found by the Examiner, Diehl
also teaches that the project management system includes a base table
holding core elements and an extended table which is an extension of the
base table including additional attributes derived from the core elements of
the base table, where the extended table is automatically updated in response
to changes in the base table. See Final Act. 6-7 (citing Diehl i-fi-f 15, 30, 31 );
see also Ans. 3. The Examiner further found Gravelle teaches a SQL query
that includes a derived table created from two base tables, where the derived
table includes a filter attribute (i.e., COUNT(b.bonus_id) AS 'Total
Bonuses') that is absent from either of the base tables. See Final Act. 6; see
also Ans. 2-3. As found by the Examiner, it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to
modify Diehl's project management system to query the extended table
based on a filter attribute absent from the base table, as taught by Gravelle.
See Final Act. 6.
5
Appeal2018-000944
Application 13/679,259
Appellants contend the combination of Diehl and Gravelle does not
teach or suggest "triggering processing of a query, received from a client
device, for a result set, the query including a filter attribute that is absent
from a base table from which the result set is to be obtained," and
"generating an extended table, the generating comprising incorporating the
calculated set of measures calculated on-the-fly from the data in the base
table and associated with the filter attribute that is absent from the base table
as one or more new columns in the base table," as recited in claim 1
because:
Gravelle indicates that the Total Bonuses value is generated for
each employee as a column for a derived table, and says nothing
about the Total Bonuses value being used as, or associated
with, a filter attribute (i.e., a portion of the query being used as
a filter). Gravelle only mentions filtering with respect to
subqueries, which may be used for "filtering data in the WHERE
clause of a SQL command or in the column list," referring to an
example of a "subquery that retrieves a list of all customers who
placed orders in the specified year," which has nothing to do
with the bonuses examples discussed thereafter in Gravelle.
Instead, Gravelle specifically indicates that its derived tables
employed in the bonuses example are best used for "queries that
incorporate some sort of grouping. In other words, those that
include a GROUP BY clause." The undersigned respectfully
submits that such grouping of data, as discussed in Gravelle, is
different from filtering.
App. Br. 9--10 (Appellants' emphasis omitted; panel's emphasis added); see
also Reply Br. 1--4.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Although Appellants
argue that the claimed "filter attribute" is limited to a portion of a query
being used as a filter, neither Appellants' claim, nor Appellants'
6
Appeal2018-000944
Application 13/679,259
Specification, defines a "filter attribute" in this manner. Instead, Appellants'
claim merely requires that the claimed "filter attribute" be an attribute "that
is absent from a base table." Appellants' Specification also describes the
claimed "filter attribute" in a consistent manner. See e.g. Spec. i-f 1 7 ("[ t ]he
query may include a filter attribute that is not directly stored on a base
table"). Thus, Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of
the claim, and, thus, is not persuasive.
Even assuming arguendo that the claimed "filter attribute" is limited
to a portion of a query being used as a filter, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive because Gravelle teaches this feature. More specifically,
Gravelle discloses selecting an attribute (i.e., "COUNT(b.bonus_id)") from a
derived table (i.e., "b"), where the attribute is not present in either of the
base tables (i.e., "employees," "bonuses") that the derived table is derived
from, and where the attribute is a portion of the query used to filter data. See
Gravelle at 2-5. In other words, although the attribute is part of the
SELECT clause of the query (as opposed to the WHERE clause), the
attribute is still a portion of a query that is used to filter data, as the SELECT
clause directs the query to only return the attribute (as well as other specific
fields of the data tables) as a result set, rather than return all of the fields of
the data tables. See id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Diehl and Gravelle teaches or suggests the claimed "filter
attribute," and therefore, also teaches or suggests the aforementioned
"triggering processing of a query," and "generating an extended table," as
recited in claim 1.
The Examiner further found that the rows of data in Diehl' s extended
table (including additional attributes derived from the core elements of the
7
Appeal2018-000944
Application 13/679,259
base table) satisfy a specific condition (i.e., a filter) and are used to derive a
result set for a query. See Final Act. 7-8 (citing Diehl i-fi-1 3 0-31 ); see also
Ans. 3. The Examiner also found that Gravelle's SQL query teaches
filtering of tables to determine filtering-satisfying rows of data. See Final
Act. 8; see also Ans. 3. As found by the Examiner, it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed
invention, to modify Diehl's extended table to be a filtered extended table
that determines filter-satisfying rows of data in the filtered extended table
based on the SQL query taught by Gravelle. See Final Act. 6; see also
Ans. 3.
Appellants further contend the combination of Diehl and Gravelle
fails to teach or suggest "creating a filtered extended table, the creating
comprising filtering, using the on-the-fly calculated set of measures included
in the extended table as filters, the extended table to determine filter-
satisfying rows of data in the extended table," and "deriving the result set for
the query using the filter-satisfying rows in the filtered extended table," as
recited in claim 1 because:
[C]laim 1 recites that the extended table is filtered by using the
calculated set of measures included in the extended table as
filters to determine filter-satisfying row of the extended table.
The undersigned respectfully submits that neither Diehl nor
Gravelle perform such an operation .... Diehl does not mention
filtering at all, much less filtering its extended tables to yield
filter-satisfying rows of those tables using data from those
tables as filters. Gravelle mentions filtering using a subquery
associated with a WHERE clause, as discussed above, but does
not mention any filtering with respect to an extended table or
the data therein.
8
Appeal2018-000944
Application 13/679,259
[A]s a consequence ... neither Diehl nor Gravelle can teach or
suggest "deriving the result set for the query using the filter-
satisfying rows in the filter extended table," as recited in claim
l. . .. Diehl does not mention filtering at all, especially with
respect to its extended tables.
App. Br. 10-11 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 4--5.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error as the argument fails to
address the rationale of the Examiner's rejection. More specifically, the
Examiner did not rely upon a single reference to teach the claimed "filtered
extended table." Rather, the Examiner relied upon Diehl for teaching
creating an extended table, as well as deriving a result set for a query using
rows in the extended table, and further relied upon Gravelle for teaching a
query that filters rows from a base table using a derived table, where the
query determines filter-satisfying rows of data in a derived table. See Final
Act. 7-8; see also Ans. 3. Appellants' argument attacks the references
individually and fails to address the combination of references. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Diehl and Gravelle teaches
or suggests the aforementioned "creating a filtered extended table ... to
determine filter-satisfying rows of data in the extended table," and "deriving
the result set for the query using the filter-satisfying rows in the filtered
extended table," as recited in claim 1.
Appellants further contend it would not have been obvious to modify
Diehl with Gravelle because "each reference generates its data using a
unique method that is not combinable with the method provided by the other
reference as proposed in the Office Action." App. Br. 11; see also App.
Br. 12; Reply Br. 6. This argument is not persuasive. It is well settled that
"a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
9
Appeal2018-000944
Application 13/679,259
does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet,
686 F. 3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for
obviousness whether a secondary reference's features can be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. Id. Thus, Appellants' argument that Diehl is not combinable with
Gravelle is not persuasive that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Diehl and Gravelle teaches or suggest all the elements of
claim 1.
Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-20 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10