9 y
`86155 U.s. PTO
`IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
`
`0
`
`.
`
`‘
`
`-
`
`66155 us. PTO
`90007705
`
`...,.'l'll..WI.
`
`Approved for use through 04/30/2007 OMB 0551-0
`‘
`'
`9I01 IO 5
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paerwork Reduction Act of 1995, no nersons are re- uired to res - -nd to a collection of information unless it dis-la s a valid OMB control number.
`Also referred to as FORM PTO - 1465)
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`Addressed to:
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Washington, DC. 20231
`
`Attorney Docket:
`
`Date: September 1, 2005
`
`I2 This is a request for ex parte reexamination pursuant to 37 CFR 1.510 of patent number
`5 617 567
`issued
`April 1l 1997
`. The request is made by:
`
`’E] patent owner.
`
`third party requester.
`
`E The name and address of the person requesting reexamination is:
`
`Oracle Corporation
`
`500 Oracle Parkwayl 50P7
`
`Redwood Shores CA 94065
`
`,
`
`E] a. A check in the amount of $_ is enclosed to cover the reexamination fee, 37 CFR 1.20(c);
`IX] b. The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge the fee as set forth in 37 CFR‘
`120(c)(1) to Deposit Account No. 15-0665 (submit duplicate of this form for fee processing);
`or
`
`'
`
`D c. Payment by credit card. Form PTO-2038 is attached.
`
`X' Any refund should be made by E] check or by IXI credit to Deposit Account No. 15-0665. 37
`CFR 1.26(c).
`
`[XI A copy of the patent to be reexamined having a double column format on one side of a
`separate paperris enclosed. 37 CFR 1.510(b)(4).
`‘
`
`E] CD-ROM or CD-R in duplicate, Computer Program (appendix) or large table
`
`C] Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Submission '
`If applicable, all of the following are necessary
`a.
`I] Computer Readable Form (CFR)
`Ab Specification Sequence Listing on:
`i. E]
`CD- ROM (2 copies) or CD- R (2 copies);o
`ii. E]
`paper
`[:1
`Statements verifying identity of above copies
`
`0.
`
`E] A copy'of any disclaimer. certificate of correction or reexamination certificate issued in the
`patent is included.
`'
`
`IX) Reexamination of claim(s)
`
`1-16
`
`is requested.
`
`
`
`IX A copy of every patent or printed publication relied upon isasyrbmitmgrfimtmngiqgfi“
`listing thereof on Form PTO- 1449 or equivalent.
`
`3528.08 Dll
`at FC:1612
`E] An English language translation of all necessary and pertinent non-English language patents
`and/or printed publications is included.
`
`$337755
`
`[Page 1 of 2]
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.510. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to tile (and
`by the USPTO to process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 1222 and 37 CFR 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 2
`hours to complete including gathering, preparing. and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the
`individual case. Any comment on the amount of time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden. should be sent
`to the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. U.S. Department of Commerce. PO. Box 1450, Alexandria. VA 22313-1450.
`DO NO SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Mail Stop Ex Pane Reexam. Commissioner for Patent. PO Box
`1450. Alexandria. VA 22313-1450.
`.
`
`'
`
`001
`
`IBM EX. 1026
`
` 001
`
`

`

`PTO/$8157 (04-04)
`Approved for use through 04/30/2007. OMB 06510033
`US. Patent and Trademark Office; US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Pa-erwork Reduction Act of 1995. no nersons are re- uired to res ond to a collection of information unless it dis a s a valid OMB control number.
`
`
`12.
`
`The attached detailed request includes at least the following items:
`
`a. A statement identifying each substantial new question of patentability based on prior patents
`and printed publication. 37 CFR 1.510(b)(1)
`
`b. An identification of every claim for which reexamination is requested, and a detailed
`explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying the cited prior art to every claim for which
`reexamination is requested. 37 CFR 1.510(b)(2)
`
`E] A proposed amendment is included (only where the patent owner is the requester). 37 CFR
`1.510(e).
`
`It is certified that a copy of this request (if filed by other than the patent owner) has been
`E a.
`served in its entirety on the patent owner as provided in 37 CFR 1.33(c).
`
`The name and address of the party served and the date of service are:
`
`ALLEN DYER DOPPELT MILBRATH & GILCHRIST PA.
`
`1401 CITRUS CENTER 255 SOUTH‘ORANGE AVENUE
`
`PO. BOX 3791
`
`ORLANDO FL 32802-3791
`
`Date of Service: September 1, 2005
`
`'
`
`.
`
`15.
`
`Correspondence Address: Direct all communication about the reexamination to:
`
`Customer Number:
`
`34313
`
`Firm or Individual
`Name
`
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`
`I
`
`
`
`Telephone
`
`(949)567-6710
`
`_
`
`16. IXI The patent is currently the subject of the following concurrent proceeding(s):
`E a. Copending reissue application Serial No.
`11/152,833
`[I b. Copending reexamination Control No.
`[I c. Copending Interference No.
`[:l d. Copending litigation styled:
`
`WARNING: Information on‘this form may become public. Credit card information should not be
`included on this form. Provide credit card information and authorization on PTO-2038.
`
`Wfi
`Authorized Signature
`
`Donald E. Da bell
`
`Typed/Printed Name
`‘
`
`September 1, 2005
`
`.
`
`Date
`
`50 877
`
`'
`
`Registration Nofi, if applicable
`[I For Patent Owner Requester
`E For Third Party Requester
`
`[Page 2 of 2]
`
`002
`
` 002
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`mm
`
`Request for Reexamination of:
`
`US. Patent No. 5,617,567
`
`Inventor:
`
`Karol Doktor
`
`Assignee:
`
`Financial Systems Technology
`(Intellectual Property) Pty Ltd
`
`Melbourne, Australia
`
`:EESUESngggfiIggEg- PATENT
`N0 15:16:'71567
`
`Filed:
`
`May 11, 1995 '
`
`ATTACHMENT TO FORM 1465
`
`Issued:
`
`April 1, 1997
`
`For:
`
`Data Processing System and
`Method for Retrieving And
`Entity Specified in a Search
`Path Record from a Relational
`
`Database
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO. Box 1450,
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 302 et seq. and 37 C.F.R. § 1.510, Oracle
`
`Corporation (“Oracle”) hereby requests ex parte reexamination of US. Patent No. 5,617,567 (“the
`
`‘567 patent”). Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of the ‘567 patent, as required under 37 CPR.
`
`
`§ 1.510(b)(4). The ‘567 patent was issued on April 1,1997 to Karol Doktor. On its face, the ‘567
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`37 CFR §1.1o
`
`Date: September 1. 2005
`Express Mailing Label No..' EV 571664894 US
`
`I hereby certify that on the dated listed above this paper (along with any paper referred to as being attached or enclosed)‘Is being
`deposited with the United States Postal Service in accordance with 37 C. F R § 1 10 as “Express Mail Post Office to Addressee"
`with sufficient postage in an envelope addressed to: Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam Commissioner of Patents, P. O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`Sally Hartwell
`
`
`
`003
`
` 003
`
`

`

`patent indicates that it was assigned to Financial Systems Technology Pty Ltd. Financial Systems
`Technology Pty Ltd. claims it has assigned the patent to Financial Systems Technology (Intellectual
`
`Property) Pty Ltd. For convenience, both entities will be referred to as “FST” in this request. FST
`
`has stated it believes the ‘567 patent is enforceable and there is no disclaimer, certificate of
`
`correction, or reexamination certificate.
`
`The ‘567 patent is presently the subject of a reissue application, Application Serial No.
`
`11/152,833, filed on June 14, 2005. Additionally, the ‘567 patent was previously the'subj ect of
`
`litigation proceedings in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, styled as Financial
`
`Systems Technology, et al. v. Oracle Corporation, Case No. 2:04-CV-358-TJW. During these
`
`proceedings, FST prepared and served on Oracle its Preliminary Infringement Contentions (“PICS”)
`
`as required under the Patent Local Rules of the Eastern District of Texas. This document is a court
`
`record that contains admissions of the patentee, and is therefore proper for consideration under
`
`MPEP §2217 for purposes including determining claim scope and the content of the prior art. A
`
`copy of these PICS is attached as Exhibit B to this request. This litigation was recently dismissed
`
`without prejudice to allow PST to pursue the above—noted reissue application. FST has stated that it
`
`intends to assert the ‘567 patent following the reissue proceedings.
`
`I.
`
`’
`
`CLAIMS FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED
`
`Reexamination is requested of claims 1-16 of the "567 patent in view of the disclosure in
`
`LSL: A Link and Selector Langgage, Proceedings of the 1976 ACM SIGMOD International
`Conference on Management ofData, Washington, DC. June 2-4, 1976, attached as Exhibit C.
`
`Reexamination is also requested of claims 1-16 of the ‘567 patent in view of the disclosure in
`
`The Well System: A Multi—User Database System Based on Binagy Relationships and Graph-
`
`Pattem-Matching, 3 Information Systems 99-115 (Pergamon Press 1978) , attached as Exhibit D.
`
`Reexamination is also requested of claims 1-16 of the ‘567 patent in View of the disclosure in
`
`Design of the Well System, in Entity-Relationship Approach to Systems Analysis and Design. Proc.
`
`lst International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach, 505-522 (Peter Chen, ed. 1979) ,
`
`004
`
` 004
`
`

`

`attached as Exhibit E.
`
`All of the claims cited above are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or rendered obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the three prior art publications noted above.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY
`PURSUANT TO 37 C..FR. § 1.510! E111!
`
`The prior art documents discussed herein were not of record in the file of the ‘567 patent.
`
`Since claims 1-16 in the ‘567 patent are not patentable over these prior art documents, a substantial
`
`new question of patentability is raised. Further, the prior art documents discussed herein are closer
`
`to the subject matter of the ‘567 patent than any prior art which was cited during the prosecution of
`
`the ‘567 patent, as demonstrated in detail below. These prior art documents provide teachings not
`
`provided during prosecution of the ‘567 patent.
`
`A.
`
`The ‘567 Patent Disclosure
`
`The ‘567 patent relates to systems and methods of performing compound queries on
`
`particular types of databases. The ‘567 patent purports to disclose several variations on a compound
`
`querying method of retrieving data from a database, wherein the results of one query are used in a
`
`second query to locate information within a database. The basic method purportedly disclosed in the
`
`‘567 patent is shown in Figure 1 below, accompanied by the corresponding basic methods as taught
`
`by the prior art cited in’ this reexamination request.
`
`005
`
` 005
`
`

`

`Basic Method Purportedly Disclosed in
`'567 patent
`
`Basic Method Disclosed in Tsichritzis
`reference
`(pg. 128. para. 5 - pg. 128. para. 5)
`
`Basic Method Disclosed in Munz
`References
`(e.g. Munz l. pg. 107. sec. 4.3.2;
`Munz ll, pg. 510, sec. 2.1)
`
`a.
`
`Form First Search Path
`Record
`
`b.
`
`Taught by
`Prior Art
`-
`
`-
`
`Examination
`
`Retrieve Results of First
`Search Path Record
`
`
`
`Form Second Search Path
`
`‘
`
`d. Retrieve Results of Second
`Search Path Record Using
`Results of First Search
`Path Record
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Store Results of First
`9-
`Search Path Record in
`Abbreviated Results
`Gathering Means
`
`
`
`Point of novelty
`for claims 1. 3. 5.
`7. 9. 10, 11, and
`12
`
`Point of novelty
`for claims 2. 4, 6,
`8, 13, 14, 15. and
`16
`
`Store First and Second
`f-
`
`Search Path Records in
`
`
`Inquiry Definition Table
`Means
`
`
`
`Form First Link
`(Le. LAB)
`
`
`
`
`
`Retrieve Results of First
`Link
`(i.e. “Second Pass")
`
`Form Second Link
`(i.e. LBC)
`
`Retrieve Results of Second
`Link Using Results of First
`Link
`(is. 'Third Pass“)
`
`Store Results of First Link
`in Navigation Table
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Store First and Second
`Links in Relation Table
`(as part of the stored
`Relation)
`
`
`
`Form Subweb (First Search
`Path Record)
`
`
`
`Retrieve Results of Subweb
`
`Form Outer Pattern
`(Second Search Path
`Record)
`
`Retrieve Results of Outer
`Pattern Using Results of
`Subweb
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Store Results of Subweb in
`set of IDs
`
`Store Subweb and Outer
`Pattem in Comma-
`Separated Character String
`
`Figure 1
`
`While Figure 1 above depicts the method steps as disclosed in the ‘567 disclosure (and in the
`
`prior art), the claims of the ‘567 patent do not claim all of these steps. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11
`
`and 12 omit step f., and claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16 omit step e. from the disclosed method.
`
`Thus the final two steps of the claimed methods is as shown in Figure 2 below. Of course, each
`
`claim of the ‘567 patent still reads on the prior art cited in this reexamination request, even thOugh
`
`the cited art includes an extra step which is not claimed in a particular claim.
`
`006
`
` 006
`
`

`

`Methods Purportedly Claimed in '567
`
`patent - final steps
`
`Retrieve Results of Second
`
`Search Path Record Using
`
`Results of First Search
`Path Record
`
`
`
`
`Point of novelty
`for claims 1, 3. 5.
`7. 9. 10. 11. and
`12
`
`
`
`e.
`
` Store First and Second
`Store Results of First
`
`Search Path Records in
`Search Path Record in
`
`
`
`lnquiry Definition Table
`Abbreviated Results
`
`
`
`Means
`Gathering Means
`
`
`
`
`Point of novelty
`for claims 2, 4. 6,
`8, 13. 14. 15, and
`16
`
`Figure 2
`
`The basis for allowability of all of the claims of the ‘567 patent was the “abbreviated results
`
`gathering means” and “inquiry definition table means” limitations, one or the other of which is found
`in every claim. The Examiner found, and Applicants eventually conceded, that the prior art of
`
`record in the prosecution of the ‘.567 patent, namely US. Patent 4,893,232 to Shimaoka
`
`(“Shimaoka”) and Korth and Silberschatz, Database System Concepts (“Korth”), taught all of the
`
`elements of all of the claims, except for the “abbreviated results gathering means” and “inquiry
`
`definition table means” elements] The Examiner conceded that the prior art of record did not teach
`
`an abbreviated results gathering means, nor an inquiry definition table means. The Examiner stated:
`
`“1 1. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons
`
`for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although breaking a
`
`I The patent also discusses extensively the use of “entities” and “relations.” The concepts of entities and relations
`«originates from the Entity-relationship model originally developed by Peter Chen. See Chen, Peter P., The Entity-
`Relationship Model — Towards a Unified View of Data, ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1, 1 (March 1976) p. 9-36.
`This model is different from the classical relational database model. Notably, while the patentee cited extensive art
`related to relational databases, it did not cite any relevant art related to the entity-relation model, including relevant
`pages from Korth and Silberschatz, Database System Concepts, which described both models. Patentee only cited
`those pages related to relational databases but not the entity-relation model.
`
`007
`
` 007
`
`

`

`compound query into separate queries which depend upon previous
`
`queries (ofien called “pipelining” in other prior art) was well
`
`known and widely appreciated in the field of query optimization at
`
`the time of Applicant’s invention, Applicant’s “inquiry definition
`
`table” means
`
`interpreted in light of the specification (pages 44,
`
`line 30 - page 46, line 5) and the “abbreviated results gathering
`
`means”
`
`also interpreted in light of the Specification (page 50,
`
`‘
`
`line 26 - page 57, line 6), in conjunction with the limitations of the
`
`claims upon which they depend was not shown by, nor fairly
`
`suggested by, no would have been obvious over, the prior art of
`
`record.”
`
`See Exhibit F, Office Action mailed August 24, 1995, pg. 4, para. 11.
`
`Applicant then unsuccessfully sought to argue that its broader claims that lacked the “inquiry
`
`definition table means” and “abbreviated results gathering means” limitations were allowable over
`Shimaoka and Korth. See Exhibit G, Amendment filed February 26, 1996. The Examiner found
`
`Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and maintained his rejections of the broader claims. See
`
`Exhibit H, Office Action mailed May 2, 1996, paras. 4—8. Specifically, the Examiner found that
`
`“Applicant’s claims are so broadly stated that they read upon boolean combination of clauses in a .
`
`compound query,” which was taught by Korth. See id at para. 8. The Applicant then acquiesced to
`
`the Examiner’s rejections, and accepted the claims the Examiner found allowable, including the
`
`limitations directed to the “inquiry definition table means” and “abbreviated results gathering
`
`means.” See Exhibit 1, Amendment filed August 7, 1996.
`
`B.
`
`. New Question of Patentability
`
`A substantial new question of patentability is presented in this reexamination as to whether
`
`using an inquiry definition table means or an abbreviated results gathering means to facilitate
`
`retrieving data from a relational database by submitting a nested query or join query that extracts
`
`008
`
` 008
`
`

`

`data from the database using two relations, is anticipated and/or obvious in view of the prior art cited
`
`herein.
`
`Pursuant to MPEP §904.01 and §2258, the examiner is obligated to give the patent claims
`
`their broadest reasonable construction.2 Patentee claims that the "inquiry definition table means,"
`
`the point of novelty for claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 1'1, and 12, is a system table that stores query
`
`definitions. Exhibit B, FST PICs, Appendix B, pg. 1, para. 3. Applying the broadest reasonable
`
`construction, the references attached hereto as Exhibits C-E, considered in view of the admissions
`
`presented in Exhibit B, render the claims invalid as anticipated and/or obvious. Patentee further
`
`claims that the "abbreviated results gathering means," the point of novelty for claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 13,
`
`14, 15, and 16, is a table in a database management system that stores the intermediate results of a
`
`query. Exhibit B, FST PICs, Appendix B, pg. 4, para. 2. Applying the broadest reasonable
`construction, the references attached hereto as Exhibits C-E, considered in view of the admissions
`
`presented in Exhibit B, render the claims invalid as anticipated and/or obvious.
`
`Oracle submits that the following publications anticipate-and/or render obvious, either alone
`
`or in combination with each other or with the prior art of record in this patent, claims 1-16 of the
`
`‘567 patent:
`
`1. D. Tsichritzis, LSL: A Link'and Selector Langgage,
`Proceedings of the 1976 ACM SIGMOD International
`Conference on Management of Data, Washington, DC. June 2-
`4, 1976 (“Tsichritzis”);
`
`2. Munz, Rudolf, The Well System; A Multi-User Database
`System Based on Binary Relationships and Graph-Pattem-
`Matching, 3 Information Systems 99-115 (Pergamon Press
`1978) (“Munz I”);
`
`2 The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP") provides that the Examiner is to give the claims of a patent
`under reexamination the broadest scope to which the claims are reasonably entitled. See MPEP §2258. This is
`because once the patent is placed in reexamination, its status reverts to that of a pending application in which claims
`are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 904.01. FST has set forth its views of the scope
`of the claims of the ‘567 patent in its Preliminary Infringement Contentions it served on Oracle in the litigation.
`Oracle believes these contentions are overbroad and inaccurate in many respects, and intends to vigorously contest
`these contentions in any fixture litigation. However, in order that the Examiner be fully informed Oracle brings these
`PICS to the Examiner’s attention. Note that FST’s PICs include two appendices, both titled “Appendix A”. The
`appendix containing the ‘567 patent PICS should have been titled Appendix B, and it will be referred to as Appendix
`B in this document.
`
`009
`
` 009
`
`

`

`3. Munz, Rudolf, Design of the Well System, in Entity-
`Relationship Approach to Systems Analysis and Design. Proc.
`lst International Conference on the Entity-Relationship
`Approach, 505-522 (Peter Chen, ed. 1979) (“Munz 11”);
`
`Oracle submits that all of the references cited herein raise a substantial new issue of
`
`patentability because they anticipate or render obvious all of the claims for which reexamination is
`
`I
`
`sought and they were not previously of record or cited by the Examiner or the Applicants.
`
`The prior art cited herein is more relevant to patentability than the prior art previously
`
`considered by the Examiner in that they show (1) tables in database management systems that store
`
`the intermediate results of a query and (2) a system table that stores query definitions, which were
`
`the purported deficiencies in Shimaoka and Korth. The prior art cited also contains each other
`
`limitation of each of the asserted claims. As a consequence, these references create a substantial
`
`new question of patentability, are more relevant than prior references cited and should cause
`
`rejection of claims 1 —16.
`
`III.
`
`EXPLANATION OF PERTINENCE AND MANNER OF APPLYING CITED
`PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS
`
`W C
`
`laims 1-16 of the ‘567 patent are considered to be fully anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by
`the prior art references to Tsichritzis and Munz. The Tsichritzis and Munz references are
`summarized below, with an explanation and detailed charts showing how each prior art reference
`
`meets all of the recited features of claims 1-16 of the ‘567 patent.
`
`A.
`
`Tsichritzis reference summary
`
`The Tsichritzis reference contains the two elements which the Examiner found were missing
`
`from the prior art of record in the ‘567 patent. The Tsichritzis reference discloses a RELATION
`
`TABLE, which is a system table that stores query definitions, thus corresponding to the claimed
`
`“inquiry definition table means.” The Tsichritzis reference discloses a NAVIGATION TABLE,
`
`which is a table in a database management system that stores the intermediate results of a query, and
`
`along with the code that operates on it corresponds to the claimed “abbreviated results gathering
`
`means.” Tsichritzis also contains every other element of claims 1l16, as discussed further below and
`
`010
`
` 010
`
`

`

`in the claim chart following.
`Tsichritzis discloses a relational database system that allows a user to create records (i.e.
`
`entities) and links between records (i.e. relations). The “records” of Tsichritzis correspond to the
`
`“entities” as construed by the patentee in its infringement contentions. The “links” correspond to the
`
`“relations” as construed by the patentee in its infringement contentions. Tsichritzis further allows
`
`the user to use the records and links to build what Tsichritzis calls “relations.” In Tsichritzis, a
`
`“relation” is formed by “selecting, projecting on a record type then linking on a different record type,
`
`possibly selecting and linking again, etc.
`
`”3 This stepping-stone approach is the same as the approach
`
`disclosed and claimed in the ‘567 patent.
`
`An example of a “relation” is given as :
`
`
`
`Define relation relation_name from A select SA keep AA
`
`liik with LAB t_o B select SB
`li_n_k with LBC t_o C select SC keep CC
`
`A, B and C are tables (record types). SA, SB and SC are “selectors” that define subsets of
`
`the entities stored in the tables. Depending on the specific criteria used in the selectors, either a
`
`single entity or a group of entities can be specified. LAB and LBC are relations (links) that connect
`
`the tables A-B and B-C based on specified linking criteria. AA and CC: are attributes of the entities
`
`of A and C that are desired to be retained by the user.
`This “relation” structure includes the “search path records” as claimed in the "567 patent, and
`
`corresponds generally to the structure that is used to perform the claims of the ‘567 patent. For
`
`
`example, “A select SA keep AA, M with LAB Q B select SB” corresponds to a first search path
`
`record, and “E m LBC t_o C select SC keep CC” corresponds to a second search path record.
`
`The relations of Tsichritzis are stored in a RELATION TABLE, which includes the definition of all
`
`of the relations created by users of the database. This RELATION TABLE corresponds to the
`
`3 Tsichritzis uses the term “relation" in a manner different from how that term is used in the ‘567 patent. The term
`“relation” is a popular term used by those skilled in the art of relational databases, but the definition of this term is
`not consistent among those skilled in the art. What Tsichritzis calls a "relation" is the same element that the '567
`patent calls a "search path record".
`
`011'
`
` 011
`
`

`

`claimed “inquiry definition table means” as identified by the Examiner in his “reasons for the
`
`indication of allowable subject matter” discussed above. See Exhibit F, pg. 4, para. 11.
`
`When Tsichritzis creates a relation, it generates a table referred to as a NAVIGATION
`TABLE, that “contains record identifiers of all records used in the creation of the relation.” This
`
`NAVIGATION TABLE is filled in passes, as the database processing system parses each step in the
`
`stepping-stone relation defined in the RELATION TABLE. The NAVIGATION TABLE is used by
`
`Tsichritzis to store the record identifiers selected in each pass, which record identifiers comprise the
`
`intermediate answers to the relation (query), as claimed. Once the relation is fully processed, “the
`
`resulting NAVIGATION TABLE completely captures the navigation according to the connections”
`
`between entities. The NAVIGATION TABLE corresponds to the claimed “abbreviated results
`
`gathering means” as identified by the Examiner in his “reasons for the indication of allowable
`
`subject matter” discussed above. See Exhibit F, pg. 4, para. 11.
`
`This NAVIGATION TABLE contains record identifiers, which are the “abbreviated results”.
`
`claimed by the ‘567 patent. These record identifiers (abbreviated results) are then used to retrieve
`
`the full result relation, by parsing the NAVIGATION TABLE and picking the records corresponding
`
`to the record identifiers from the tables, and retrieving the desired attributes from the records. The
`
`NAVIGATION TABLE and the code that operates on it is the claimed “abbreviated results
`
`gathering means”.
`Therefore, the Tsichritzis reference contains the two elements which the Examiner found'
`
`were missing from the prior art of record, the “inquiry definition table means” and the “abbreviated
`
`results gathering means”, as well as all of the other elements of claims 1-16 of the ‘567 patent. Thus
`the Tsichritzis reference fully anticipates the claims of the ‘567 patent and these claims should all be
`
`cancelled.
`
`B.
`
`Munz references summary
`
`The two Munz references Munz I and Munz 11 contain the two elements which the Examiner
`
`1o
`
`_
`
`012
`
` 012
`
`

`

`found were missing from the prior art of record in the ‘567 patent. 4 The Munz references disclose a
`comma-separated value table structure for containing the pattern to be retrieved. This table structure
`
`is a system table that stores query definitions, thus corresponding to the claimed “inquiry definition.~
`
`table means.” The Munz references disclose generating a set of [BS which represent the various sets
`of intermediate answers (sets of le) gathered in the Munz system. The internal storage that
`
`contains these sets of IDs, along with the code in the GET procedure which expands them to full
`
`results, corresponds to the claimed “abbreviated results gathering means.” Munz also contains every
`
`other element of claims 1-16, as discussed further below and in the claim chart following.
`
`The Munz references disclose a database system that allows a user to create entities and
`
`relationships (i.e. relations) between entities. The term “entity” as used in the Munz references
`
`corresponds to an "entity instance number" (i.e. an “EiN” which is a record identifier or an entity
`
`identifier) as that term is used in the '567 patent. The Munz references disclose two types of ,
`
`relationships, relationships between entities (entity-relationship-entity) and relationships between an
`
`entity and an attribute (entity-relationship-value). The Munz entity-entity relationships correspond to
`the term “relation” as that term is used in the ‘567 patent. The Munz entity-attribute relationships
`correspond to the term “entity” as that term is used in the ‘567 patent.
`
`For example, shown below are two tables from FIG. 22 of Munz I, and the corresponding
`
`two tables from FIGS 7-1 and 7-2 of the ‘567 patent.
`
`4 The two Munz references, Munz I and Munz 11, both discuss the WELL system, a database invented by Dr. Munz
`and his associates in the late 1970’s. See Munz I, p. 99, Abstract (“The WELL database system is based on the
`WEB-model, a binary data model in which entities and their relationships are described by graph-like data structures
`with labelled nodes and edges”); Munz II, p. 505, para. 2 (“The WELL system is a database system based on the
`WEB model (see Munz /8/), a binary data model in which entities and their relationships are described by graph-like
`data structures with labelled nodes and edges”) Both references are authored by the inventor, Dr. Munz. The Munz
`11 reference includes a specific citation to the Munz I reference, and thereby incorporates the Munz I reference into
`the Munz 11 reference. See Munz II, p. 505, para. 2. Additionally, there is plainly a sufficient motivation to
`combine the teachings of the two references, as they are both authored by the same inventor of the WELL system;
`they both discuss the same underlying database system, and the later reference contains an express citation to the
`earlier reference. Both references pre-date the earliest filing date for which the ‘567 patent could possibly be
`entitled to (May 21, 1990) by greater than one year (Munz I published in 1978, Munz 11 published in 1979). For
`purposes of this request, Munz I and Munz II will be treated as a single reference with a publication date of 1979,
`which anticipates the claims of the ‘567 patent under 35 U.S.C §102. Alternatively, the two Munz references render
`the ‘567 patent claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
`'
`
`11
`
`013
`
` 013
`
`

`

`95mm
`
`
`
`Fig. 22. lawns! tables med to implement the database~W£B.
`
`Tall 1)
`
`
`RIN
`LEEL‘J.
`Rel.
`Head
`e it
`1m
`.1 1333‘ iii
`22-2."3 .1] ::::
`a Ill
`IEJ .
`ALEEEJ- IE
`
`.szm- IE]
`
`FIG. 74
`
`FIG. 7-2
`
`The “Person Leads” table from Munz contains entity-entity relationship instances, as shown
`
`by the “ID” values stored in each column. The corresponding “T.REL-1” table from the ‘567 patent
`
`contains relation instances, as shown by the “Ei” identifier values stored in columnsa“ ” and “e”
`
`The “Person Name” table from Munz contains entity-value relationship instances, as shown by the
`
`“lD”.and “value” data stored in each column. The corresponding “T.Companies” table from the
`
`‘567 patent contains entity instances, as shown by the “EiN” and “Bi” (in this case, company name)
`
`data stored in each column.
`
`Munz further allows the user to use the entities and relationships to build what Munz calls
`
`“patterns” or “subwebs.” In Munz, a “pattern” is formed by identifying the entities and relationships
`
`that express the desired subset of the entire database that the user wishes to retrieve. The pattern is
`
`characterized “by its structure, by the entity and relationship names in it and by some of the values in
`
`it.” Certain patterns include special operators ALL or COUNT. These patterns are processed using
`
`12
`
`014
`
` 014
`
`

`

`a two-stage, stepping-stone search process, wherein the inner sub-pattem defined by the ALL
`
`operator is searched first, and then the outer subpattem is applied to further limit the search . This
`
`stepping-stone approach is the same as the approach claimed in the ‘567 patent.
`
`An example of such a pattern is shown graphically in FIG. 13 of the Munz I reference.
`
`
`
`Mmmmmmmammmm
`mmmmmmmml
`
`F3. :3. Examples dam min ALL
`
`This pattern can also be expressed as “find a first group consisting of all persons who work in
`
`the project DB8, and then find the name and birthdate of those persons who manage the first group.”
`
`This pattern is linearized into a table form according to the notation shown in