Lotan, Yalon et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 8, 2020

2019003259 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2020)

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.
14/396,131 10/22/2014 Yalon Lotan 84072998 5425
146568 7590 09/08/2020
MICRO FOCUS LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
EXAMINER
DEWAN, KAMAL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2020 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):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YALON LOTAN, GIL TZADIKEVITCH, and
HADAS AVRAHAM
____________

Appeal 2019-003259
Application 14/396,131
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, 11–14, 16–18, and 20–25, i.e., all pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest
as ENTIT SOFTWARE LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003259
Application 14/396,131

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention concerns a “federated
configuration data management system” configured “to support data stores
including data from multiple tenants.” Spec. ¶ 9.2 The Specification
explains that “techniques for retrieving data located on external data stores,”
e.g., data warehousing, include “loading data from one or more external data
stores into a data warehouse.” Id. ¶ 2. But according to the Specification,
these techniques “may be very costly.” Id. Hence, the invention endeavors
to “use database federation techniques or, more specifically, configuration
management database (CMDB) federation techniques, instead of data
warehousing techniques” to retrieve “data from the external data stores to
a CMDB on-the-fly without having to copy large amounts of data to the
CMDB.” Id.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A method comprising:
receiving a query from a client at a data management
server comprising a processor, wherein the query comprises
a tenant property condition corresponding to the client;

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed July 31, 2012; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed June 29, 2018; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed October 26,
2018; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 24, 2019; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed March 22, 2019.
Appeal 2019-003259
Application 14/396,131

3
identifying, by the data management server, an external
data store comprising data specified by the query comprising
the tenant property condition;
determining, by the data management server, whether the
external data store is multi-tenant enabled or non-multi-tenant
enabled; and
in response to determining that the external data store is
non-multi-tenant enabled:
determining whether a default tenant defined for
the non-multi-tenant enabled external data store matches
the tenant property condition specified by the query;
in response to determining that the default tenant
defined for the non-multi-tenant enabled external data
store matches the tenant property condition specified by
the query,
removing, by the data management server,
the tenant property condition from the query,
executing the query, with the tenant property
condition removed from the query, on the non-
multi-tenant enabled external data store to retrieve
the specified data, and
adding tenant information of the default
tenant to the specified data that is returned to
the client; and
in response to determining that the default tenant
defined for the non-multi-tenant enabled external data
store does not match the tenant property condition
specified by the query, returning an empty result for
the query to the client.
Claims App. i.
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
relies on the following prior art:
Appeal 2019-003259
Application 14/396,131

4
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–3, 5–7, 13, 14, 16–18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kowalski, Venkataraman, and Mandelstein.
Final Act. 11–28.
Claims 11, 12, 20, 21, and 23–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Kowalski, Venkataraman, Mandelstein, and Tubman.
Final Act. 28–39.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments
that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we disagree with
the Examiner’s conclusions concerning unpatentability under § 103. We
provide the following to address and emphasize specific findings and
arguments.
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 1–3, 5–7, 13, 14, 16–18, and 22
As noted above, the § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 13
rests on Kowalski, Venkataraman, and Mandelstein. See Final Act. 11–17,
20–25. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1

3 Venkataraman is a division of an application filed on March 5, 2012.
Tubman et al. (“Tubman”) US 2010/0115100 A1 May 6, 2010
Kowalski et al.
(“Kowalski”)
US 2012/0330929 A1 Dec. 27, 2012
(filed June 27, 2011)
Venkataraman et al.
(“Venkataraman”)
US 2013/0097204 A1 Apr. 18, 2013
(filed Dec. 4, 2012)3
Mandelstein et al.
(“Mandelstein”)
US 2013/0238641 A1 Sept. 12, 2013
(filed Mar. 8, 2012)
Appeal 2019-003259
Application 14/396,131

5
and 13 because the references do not teach or suggest the following
limitations in claim 1 and similar limitations in claim 13: “determining . . .
whether the external data store is multi-tenant enabled or non-multi-tenant
enabled”; “determining whether a default tenant defined for the non-multi-
tenant enabled external data store matches the tenant property condition
specified by the query”; and “in response to determining that the default
tenant defined for the non-multi-tenant enabled external data store matches
the tenant property condition specified by the query, removing . . . the tenant
property condition from the query.” See Appeal Br. 6–11; Reply Br. 2–9.
In particular, Appellant argues that claim 1 requires that “in response
to determining that the external data store is non-multi-tenant enabled and in
response to determining that the default tenant defined for the non-multi-
tenant enabled external data store matches the tenant property condition
specified by the query, the tenant property condition is removed from the
query.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphases by Appellant); see Reply Br. 6. Appellant
then contends that, in contrast to claim 1, “Venkataraman starts with a data
access command that is non-tenant-specific (i.e., does not include a tenant
property condition) and translates the non-tenant-specific data access
command into a tenant-specific data access command.” Appeal Br. 9; see
Reply Br. 3. Appellant also contends that Mandelstein does not disclose
“removing the tenant property condition from the query that initially
included the tenant property condition, in response to determining that the
external data store is non-multi-tenant enabled.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphases
by Appellant); see Reply Br. 7–8.
The Examiner finds that Venkataraman teaches (1) determining
whether an external data store is multi-tenant enabled or non-multi-tenant
Appeal 2019-003259
Application 14/396,131

6
enabled, (2) acting in response to determining that an external data store is
non-multi-tenant enabled, (3) acting in response to determining that a default
tenant defined for a non-multi-tenant enabled external data store matches a
tenant property condition specified by a query, and (4) acting in response to
determining that a default tenant defined for a non-multi-tenant enabled
external data store does not match a tenant property condition specified by
a query. Final Act. 13–14 (citing Venkataraman ¶¶ 17–19, 38). Further, the
Examiner finds that Mandelstein teaches (1) determining whether a default
tenant defined for a non-multi-tenant enabled external data store matches a
tenant property condition specified by a query and (2) removing the tenant
property condition from the query. Id. at 14–15 (citing Mandelstein ¶¶ 63,
66–67); see Ans. 7.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of the
references in general, and Mandelstein in particular, teach or suggest the
disputed “removing . . . the tenant property condition from the query”
limitation in claim 1 or the similar limitation in claim 13. Mandelstein
discloses “converting a tenant database from one deployment option to
another deployment option for each table owned by the requesting tenant.”
Mandelstein ¶ 66, Fig. 6. For each table owned by the requesting tenant, a
multi-tenant application may search the database with a query that “select[s]
all data where the tenant identification column” in a table “equals the tenant
identification information associated with the requesting tenant” in the
query. Id. ¶ 66. “Once the data has been selected,” the multi-tenant
application may “delete[] a column containing tenant identification
Appeal 2019-003259
Application 14/396,131

7
information from [a] table resulting from” the query, “depending on the
requested deployment option.” Id. ¶ 67, Fig. 6.
Accordingly, Mandelstein deletes or removes tenant information from
the result of the query, not from the query as required by claims 1 and 13.
See Mandelstein ¶¶ 66–67, Fig. 6. Hence, we do not sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 1 and 13.
Claims 2, 3, 5–7, and 16–18 depend from claim 1, and claims 14 and
22 depend from claim 13. For the reasons discussed for claims 1 and 13, we
do not sustain the § 103 rejection of these dependent claims.
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 11, 12, 20, 21, and 23–25
Independent claim 11 includes a limitation similar to the disputed
“removing . . . the tenant property condition from the query” limitation in
claim 1, i.e., “remove the tenant property condition from the TQL query.”
Claims App. iii. On this record, the Examiner has not shown how the
additionally cited Tubman reference overcomes the deficiency in Kowalski,
Venkataraman, and Mandelstein discussed above for claims 1 and 13.
Hence, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 11.
Claims 12, 21, and 23–25 depend from claim 11, and claim 20
depends from claim 13. For the reasons discussed for claims 11 and 13,
we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of these dependent claims.
Because these determinations resolve the appeal, we need not address
Appellant’s other arguments regarding Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit
Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that
an administrative agency may render a decision based on “a single
dispositive issue”).
Appeal 2019-003259
Application 14/396,131

8
CONCLUSION
We reverse the § 103 rejections of claims 1–3, 5–7, 11–14, 16–18,
and 20–25.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7,
13, 14,
16–18, 22
103
Kowalski,
Venkataraman,
Mandelstein

1–3, 5–7,
13, 14,
16–18, 22
11, 12, 20,
21, 23–25 103
Kowalski,
Venkataraman,
Mandelstein,
Tubman
11, 12, 20, 21, 23–25
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–7,
11–14,
16–18,
20–25
REVERSED