551555 ”‘3?ij
`“m“““ll‘ll‘l‘l‘l‘l‘ll‘lm“““
`
`"
`
`Approved for use through 04/30/2007. OMB 0651-003
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Pacerwork ReductionAct of 1995. no -ersons 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
`
`aggloolfiopgo
`I
`m...lllllllllllymmmlllllllml
`
`1/05
`
`Addressed to:
`
`’
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Washin uton, D.C. 20231
`
`- Attorney Docket:
`
`Date: September 1, 2005
`
`IX This is a request for ex parte reexamination pursuant to 37 CFR 1.510 of patent number
`5 826 259
`issued
`October 20_ 1998
`. The request is made by:
`
`I] patent owner. IX third party requester.
`
`IX] The name and address of the person requesting reexamination is:
`
`
`
`Oracle Corporation
`
`500 Oracle Parkway, SOP?
`
`Redwood Shores CA 94065
`
`_
`
`I
`
`[I a. A check in the amount of $_ is enclosed to cover the reexamination fee, 37 CFR 1.20(c);
`
`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
`
`I] 0. Payment by'credit card. Form PTO-2038 is attached.
`E Any refund should be made by [I check or by IX] credit t6 Deposit Account No. 15-0665. 37
`CFR 1.26(c).
`'
`
`E A copy of the patent to be reexamined having a double column format on one side of a
`separate paper is enclosed. 37 CFR 1.510(b)(4).
`
`D CD—ROM or CD-R in duplicate, Computer Program (appendix) or large table
`
`[:I Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Submission
`If applicable, all of the following are necessary
`a. C] Computer Readable Form (CFR)
`b. Specification Sequence Listing on:
`i. D CD-ROM (2 copies) or CD-R (2 copies); or
`ii. [:I
`- paper
`[I
`St’étefients verifying identity of above copies
`c.
`E] A copyE-Bf day disclaimer, certificate of correction or reexamination certificate issued in the
`patent is inaudgd.
`I'D
`X Reexaminflon of claim(s)
`‘1-18
`is requested.
`1"
`IZ] A copy of egery patent or printed publication relied upon is submitted herewith including a
`listing thereof 0% Form PTO-1449 or equivalent.
`a
`
`E] An English Enguage translation of all necessary and pertinent non-English language patents
`and/or printed dfiblications is included.
`v.0
`
`.
`[Page 1 of 2]
`This collection of information is rca uired by 37 CFR 1.510. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and
`by the USPTO to process)fa']1 agcafion. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 1222 and 37 CFR 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 2
`hours to complete includinfiat
`ring. preparing. and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the
`individual case. Any comrfiit 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 Offiger, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce. PO. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`DC NO SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam, Commissioner for Patent, PO. Box
`1450, Alexandria. VA 22313-1450.
`
`IBM Ex. 1016
`
`001
`
`,
`4’: 1,, 4pm
`
`001
`
`

`

`PTO/$8157 (04-04)
`Approved for use through 04/30/2007. OMB 0651-0033
`US. Patent and Trademark Office; US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paerwork Reduction Act of 1995, no -ersons are re-uired to res- nd to a collection of information unless it dis-la s a valid OMB control number.
`
`12. E 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
`IE a.
`served in its entirety on the patent owner as provided in 37 CFR 1.33(c).
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`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: Segtember1,2005
`
`.
`
`.
`
`15.
`
`Correspondence Address: Direct all communication about the reexamination to:
`
`Customer Number:
`
`34313
`
`OR
`
`firm or Indivrdual
`Name
`
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`
`Address (line 1)
`
`4 Park Plaza
`
`
`
`
`
`E)lllI
`
`
`
`Suite 1600
`
`Address (line 2)
`
`' _II_
`_Country
`Telephone
`(949) 567-6700
`(949) 567—6710
`
`16. IE The patent is currently the subject of the following concurrent proceeding(s):
`E a. Copending reissue application Serial No.
`11/152,835
`E] b. Copending reexamination Control No.
`1:] c. Copending Interference No.
`[:1 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.
`
`MW142% September 1, 2005
`
`Authorized Signa ure
`
`Date
`
`
`‘50 877
`Donald E. Da bell
`Typed/Printed Name
`Registration No., if applicable
`E] For Patent Owner Requester
`E For Third Party Requester
`
`[Page 2 of 2]
`
`002
`
`002
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT
`
`Request for Reexamination of:
`
`US. Patent No. 5,826,259
`
`Inventor:
`
`Karol Doktor
`
`Assignee:
`
`'
`
`Financial Systems Technology
`(Intellectual Property) Pty Ltd
`Melbourne, Australia
`
`Filed:
`
`May 22, 1997
`
`Issued:
`
`October 20, 1998
`
`For:
`
`
`
`Easily Expandable Data
`Processing System and Method
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE
`REEXAMINATION OF US. PATENT
`
`NO. 5, 826,259
`
`ATTACHMENT TO FORM 1465
`
`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, 826,259 (“the
`
`‘259 patent”). Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of the ‘259 patent, as required under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.510(b)(4). The ‘259 patent was issued on October 20, 1998 to Karol Doktor. On its face, the
`
`‘259 patent indicates that it was assigned to Financial Systems Technology Pty Ltd. Financial
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`37 CFR §1.10
`
`Date: September 1, 2005
`Express Mailing Label No.2 EV 571664903 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 envelop- addressed to: Mail 8 .. Ex Parte Reexam. Commissioner of Patents. PO. Box 1450.
`
`Alexandria/ A 2313-1450.
`
` Sally Hartwell
`
`003
`
`003
`
`

`

`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 toas “FST” in this
`request. FST has stated it believes the ‘259 patent is enforceable and there is no disclaimer,
`
`certificate of correction, or reexamination certificate.
`
`The ‘259 patent is presently the subject of a re-issue application, Application Serial No.
`
`11/152,835, filed on June 14, 2005. Additionally, the ‘259 patent was previously the subject 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 FST to pursue the above-noted reissue application. FST has stated that it
`
`intends to assert the ‘259 patent following the reissue proceedings.
`
`I.
`
`CLAIMS FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED
`
`Reexamination is requested of claims 1-18 of the ‘25 9 patent in view of the disclosure in
`
`LSL: A Link and Selector Language, Proceedings ofthe 1976 ACM SIGMOD International
`
`Conference on Management of Data, Washington, DC. June 2-4, 1976, attached as Exhibit C.
`
`Reexamination is also requested of claims 1-18 of the ‘259 patent in view of the disclosure in
`
`The Well System: A Multi-User Database System Based on Binary Relationships and Graph-
`
`‘ Pattern—Matching, 3 Information Systems 99-115 (Pergamon Press 1978); attached as Exhibit D.
`
`Reexamination is also requested of claims 1-18 of the ‘259 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),
`
`attached as Exhibit E.
`
`004
`
`004
`
`

`

`Reexamination is also requested of claims 1'-18 of the ‘259 patent in view of the disclosure in
`
`Implementing an Entity-Relationship Langg'age on a Relational Data Base, IBM Research Report
`
`RC 12134 (#54499) (Aug. 27, 1986), attached as Exhibit F.
`
`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 four prior art publications noted above.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`1.510
`1
`
`The prior art documents discussed herein were not of record in the file of the ‘259 patent.
`
`Since claims 1-18 in the ‘259 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 ‘259 patent than any prior art which was cited during the prosecution of
`
`the “259 patent, as demonstrated in detail below. These prior art documents provide teachings not
`
`provided during prosecution of the ‘259 patent.
`
`A.
`
`The ‘259 Patent Disclosure
`
`The ‘259 patent relates in relevant part to systems and methods of storing and retrieving data
`
`from a relational database using entity and relation type records, and entity and relation instance
`
`records. The ‘259 patent purports to. teach a hybrid entity-relationship/relational model of data
`
`representation, storage and retrieval. The ‘259 patent purports to disclose a structure for a relational
`
`database which includes the following components:
`
`1. An entity definition table (which contains the entity type records).
`2. A relation definition table (which contains the relation type records).
`3. A plurality of entity instance tables (which contain the entity instance records).
`4. A plurality of relation instance tables (which contain the relation instance records).
`
`The entity definition table contains records which each include the name of an entity type,
`
`and the name of a table that contains the actual data associated with that entity. The relation
`
`definition table contains records which each include the name of a relation type, the name of a table
`
`that contains the actual relation data, and information that identifies the two entity types which are
`
`005
`
`005
`
`

`

`related to each other by the relation. Each entity instance table contains records which are the actual
`
`entity data for an entity type, including an entity instance number (i.e. a key), and the factual entity
`
`data. Each relation instance table contains records which are the actual relation data. for a relation
`
`type, including pointers to the two entity instance records related by the relation instance record. A
`
`simplified depiction of the table structures of the ‘259 patent is shown in Figure 1 below.
`
`'259 Patent
`
`Data Structures
`
`
`
`
`Entity Definition Table
`mm:—
`
`
`em
`
`
`Point of
`
`Novelty for
`all claims
`
`Entity Instance
`Tables
`
`
`
` Point of Novelty
`
`g
`Relation Instance
`for all claims
`i
`Tables
`
`
`
`
`
`
`u——-—
`
`
`
`
`Immin-
`
`Figure 1
`When the ‘259 patent was allowed, the Examiner determined that the prior art of record in
`
`the prosecution of the ‘259 patent did not teach using a relation instance table or an entity definition
`table to contain records to be retrieved while processing queries. Thus the basis for allowability of
`
`,
`
`all of the claims of the ‘259 patent is the “relation instance tables” and “entity definition table” as
`
`shown in bold above. Specifically, the Examiner stated:
`
`“In reviewing the prior art approaches to retrieving a
`
`006
`
`006
`
`

`

`desired entity of a desired entity type from a relational database,
`
`the Examiner noted that in the claims of the present invention, the
`
`retrieving a sgecitzc relation instance record detzning a relation of
`
`said gravided relation tyge between said provided entity and said
`
`desired entity tram a relation instance table and retrieving a
`
`desired entity tyge record containing said desired entity tyge trom
`
`an entity detinition table features are not disclosed, taught or
`
`suggested by any prior art.”
`
`See Exhibit G, Notice of Allowability (Paper No. 5) mailed March 5, 1998, pg. 2, para. 1.
`
`The tables of the figure above are used by a retrieval machine to process retrieval requests
`
`made on the database, for example “Find out the names of one or more companies (for whom ‘555
`Transistor Lane’ is a ‘Business Address.’” ‘259 patent, col. 26, lines 32-34. The retrieval machine
`
`first searches the entitydefinition table to find the entity type record that corresponds to the
`
`“Address” entity type, and uses this entity type record to identify the corresponding “Address” entity
`
`instance table.
`
`‘259 patent, col. 26, lines 37-40. The retrieval machine then searches the “Address”
`
`entity instance table to locate the record which contains the value “555 Transistor Lane” and
`
`retrieves the record identifier for this record.
`
`‘259 patent, col. 26, line 66 — col. 27, line 3. The
`
`retrieval machine then searches the relation definition table to identify the relation type record that
`‘6,
`
`corresponds to the
`
`5 Business” relation type, and uses this relation type record to identify the
`
`corresponding “’5 Business” relation instance table.
`
`‘259 patent, col. 27, lines 9-16. The retrieval
`
`machine then searches the “’5 Business” relation instance table to find all of the relation instances
`
`which match the record identifier for “555 Transistor Lane”.
`
`‘259 patent, col. 27, lines 17—32. The
`
`retrieved relation instance records each point to an entity instance record of the “Business” entity
`
`type.
`
`To expand these results, the retrieval machine searches the entity definition table to identify
`
`the entity instance table that contains the entity instance records for the “Business” entity type. The
`
`007
`
`007
`
`

`

`identified entity instance table is then searched to locate the entity instance records that correspond
`
`to the retrieved entity instance numbers from the relation instance records. The located entity
`
`instance records are then provided as the final results of the retrieval request.
`
`‘259 patent, col. 29,
`
`lines 7-39.
`
`B.
`
`New Question of Patentability
`
`Claims 1-18 specify systems and methods for retrieving data from a relational database. A
`
`substantial new question of patentability in this reexamination is whether using an entity definition
`
`table and relation instance tables in combination with a relation definition table and entity instance
`
`tables to retrieve a desired entity of a desired entity type from a relational database, 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.l Patentee claims that the "entity definition table," one of the
`
`points of novelty for claims 1-18 is a system table that stores entity types. Exhibit B, FST PICS,
`
`Appendix A, pg. 2, para. 1. Applying the broadest reasonable construction, the references attached
`
`hereto as Exhibits C-F, considered in View of the admissions presented in Exhibit B, render the
`
`claims invalid as anticipated and/or obvious. Patentee further claims that the "relation instance
`table," the other point of novelty for claims 1-l8, is a table that stores records which associate
`
`records in the data table to each other. Exhibit B, FST PICS, Appendix A, pg. 1, para. 3. Applying
`
`the broadest reasonable construction, the references attached hereto as Exhibits C-F, considered in
`
`view of the admissions presented in Exhibit B, render the claims invalid as anticipated and/or
`
`obvious.
`
`' 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 ‘259 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 future 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 ‘259 patent PICs is properly titled Appendix A, and it will be referred to as Appendix A in
`this document.
`
`008
`
`008
`
`

`

`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 1-18 of the
`
`‘259 patent:
`
`1. D. Tsichritzis, LSL: A Link and Selector Language,
`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-Pattern-
`Matching, 3 Information Systems 99-115 (Pergamon Press
`1978) (“Munz I”);
`
`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 H”);
`
`4. Ashok Malhotra, Yakov Tsalalikhin, Donald P. Pazel, Luanne
`M. Burns and Harry M. Markowitz, “Implementing an Entity-
`Relationship Language on a Relational Data Base,” IBM
`Research Report RC 12134 (#54499) (Aug. 27, 1986)
`(“Malhotra”).
`
`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
`
`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. For example, as discussed above, the Examiner determined that the
`
`prior art of record in the prosecution of the ‘259 patent did not teach using a relation instance table
`
`or an entity definition table to contain records to be retrieved while processing queries. As described
`
`below, each of the references disclosed herein contains “relation instance tables” and an f‘entity
`
`definition table” and thus satisfies the alleged deficiencies in the prior art. Each reference
`
`additionally contains a relation definition table, entity instance tables, and the other limitations
`
`recited in the claims of the ‘259 patent, making each reference more relevant to patentability than the
`
`prior art of record in the prosecution of the ‘259 patent. As a consequence, these references create a
`
`009
`
`009
`
`

`

`substantial new question of patentability, are more relevant than the prior art of record, and should
`
`cause cancellation of claims 1-18.
`
`III.
`
`EXPLANATION OF PERTINENCE AND MANNER OF APPLYING CITED
`
`PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS
`REQUESTED BASED ON PRIOR ART
`
`Claims 1-18 of the ‘259 patent are considered to be fully anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by
`
`the prior art references to Tsichritzis, Munz and Malhotra. The Tsichritzis, Munz and Malhotra
`
`references are summarized below, with an explanation and detailed charts showing how each prior
`
`art reference meets all of the recited features of claims 1-18 of the ‘259 patent.
`
`A.
`
`Tsichritzis reference summary
`
`Tsichritzis discloses a relational database system that allows a user to create record
`
`occurrences (i.e. entity instances) of specified record types (i.e. entity types) and intermediate
`pointers (i.e. relation instances) that connect specific record occurrences according to links (i.e.
`
`relation types) defined between the record types. The “record occurrences” of Tsichritzis correspond
`to the “entity instances” as claimed in the ‘259 patent. The “record types” of Tsichritzis correspond
`
`to the “entity types” as claimed in the ‘259 patent. The intermediate pointers correspond to the
`
`“relation instances” as claimed in the ‘259 patent. The “links” correspond to the “relation types” as
`
`claimed in the ‘259 patent.
`
`The record types of Tsichritzis are stored in a RECORD DEFINITION TABLE (RDT),
`
`which is the claimed “entity definition table”. The record occurrences are loaded into tables named
`
`in their associated record types, which are the claimed “entity instance tables”. The intermediate
`
`pointers are stored in intermediate pointer structures, which are the claimed “relation instance
`tables.”2 The “links” are stored in a LINK DEFINITION TABLE (LDT) which is the claimed '
`
`“relation definition table”. For added convenience, these correlations are laid out in Table 1 below:
`
`2 The disclosure of the ‘259 patent teaches that a pointer structure, such as a linked list, is included in the scope of
`the term “table”. See ‘259 patent, col. 13, lines 1-10.
`
`010
`
`010
`
`

`

`
`Tsichritzis term
`‘259 Patent term
`record occurrence
`entity instance
`
`
`record type
`entity type
`intermediate pointer
`relation instance
`
`
`link
`relation type
`loaded record type
`entity instance table ‘
`RECORD DEFINITION TABLE (RDT)
`entity definitiontable
`
`
`intermediate pointer structure
`relation instance table
`LINK DEFINITION TABLE (LDT)
`relation definition table
`
`
`Table 1
`
`‘
`
`As can clearly be seen from the comparison depicted in Figure 2 below, the Tsichritzis table
`
`structure contains corresponding structures to all of the structures the Examiner found missing from
`
`the prior art of record, as well as to all of the other structures claimed in the ‘259 patent.
`
`011
`
`011
`
`

`

`'259 Patent
`Data Structures
`
`
`
`Point of
`
`
`Instance
`em’
`Novelty for
` alm—
`
`Taggs
`all claims
`num—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-----------
`_EiT-3 '
`
`fl ' Name
`
`
`
`
`
`Ill--
`
`
`Point of Novelty
`
`E\‘ $e'ljtion Instance
`for all claims
`
`
`a 6.5
`
`
`
`
`2 -3-3
`
`
`
`
`
`um— Head
`
`-1-3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`l———lml
`
`Tsichritzis Reference
`Loaded Record
`Data Structures
`Types
`
`
`
`
`HEHE
`
`
`-
`
`
`
`l
`
`
`
`
`mm:
`H—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____
`______I-
`
`
`i
`
`
`’
`
`Intermediate
`Pointer Structures
`
`...................................................................................................................................
`
`
`
`um Company
`
`
`
`Figure 2
`
`10
`
`012
`
`012
`
`

`

`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 approach is the
`
`same as the approach claimed in the ‘259 patent.
`
`An example of a “relation” is:
`
`
`
`Define relation relation_name from A select SA keep AA
`
`li_nk with LAB to B select SB keep BB
`(This is a simplified version of the example at p. 127)
`
`A, and B are entity types (record types). SA and SB 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 is a relation (link) that connects the tables A and
`B based on specified linking criteria. AA and BB are attributes of the entities SA and SB of A and B
`
`that are desired to be retained by the user.
`
`This “relation” structure, when created using the CREATE command, implements the
`
`method claimed in the ‘259 patent. To create the relation, the system scans the relation definition.
`
`It
`
`identifies the provided entity (SA) of entity type A and the provided relation type (LAB). The
`
`system retrieves the entity type record for B from the RECORD DEFINITION TABLE to determine
`
`which attributes of the desired entities SB to enumerate. It retrieves the relation type record from the
`
`LINK DEFINITION TABLE and uses that record to identify the relation instance table that contains
`
`the relation instances which link the provided entities of SA with the desired entities (SB) of table B.
`
`If this relation instance table has not yet been created, the system creates it. For each entity in SA,
`
`the system retrieves the relation instance records that relate the SA entity with the associated entities
`
`in SB from the relation instance table identified by the link LAB. The system retrieves the desired
`
`entity instance identifiers from the relation instance table. Finally, the system retrieves the desired
`
`3 Tsichritzis uses the term “relation” in a manner different from how that term is used in the ‘259 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 '259
`patent calls a "search path record".
`
`11
`
`013
`
`013
`
`

`

`entity information from the entity instance table associated with B, using the entity instance
`
`identifiers retrieved from the relation instance table along with the attribute information retrieved ,
`
`from the entity type record for B stored in the RECORD DEFINITION TABLE. This system and
`
`the methods it performs are the same as the system and method claimed in the ’259 patent.
`
`Therefore, the Tsichritzis reference contains the two elements which the Examiner found
`
`were missing from the prior art of record, the “relation instance table” and the “entity definition
`
`table”, as well as all of the other elements of claims 1-18 of the ‘259 patent. Thus the Tsichritzis
`
`reference fiilly anticipates the claims of the ‘259 patent and these claims should all be cancelled.
`
`B.
`
`Munz references summary
`
`The Munz references disclose a database system that allows a user to create entities and
`
`relationships between entities.4 The Munz system allows a user to create entries (i.e. entity
`
`instances) of entity-value relationships (i.e. entity types) and entries (i.e. relation instances) that
`
`connect entity instances according to entity-entity relationships (i.e. relation types) defined between
`
`the entity-value relationships.
`The structures in the Munz references correspond to the structures claimed in the ‘259 patent,
`
`however some of the structures are named differently between the Munz references and the ‘259'
`
`patent. For example, 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
`
`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
`II reference includes a specific citation to the Munz I reference, and thereby incorporates the Munz I reference into
`the Munz II 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 ‘259 patent could possibly be
`entitled to (May 21, 1990) by greater than one year (Munz I published in 1978, Munz II 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 ‘259 patentunder 35 U.S.C §102. Alternatively, the two Munz references render
`the ‘259 patent claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`12
`
`014
`
`014
`
`

`

`used in the ‘259 patent. The Munz references disclose two types of “relationships,” relationships
`
`between entities (entity-entity) and relationships between an entity and an attribute (entity-value).
`
`The Munz entity-entity relationship corresponds to the term “relation type” as that tennis used in the
`
`‘259 patent. The Munz entity-attribute relationship corresponds to the term “entity type” as that
`
`term is used in the ‘259 patent. The entries in the entity-entity relationship tables correspond to
`
`“relation instances” as that term is used in the ‘259 patent. The entries in the entity-value
`
`relationship tables correspond to “entity instances” as that term is used in the ‘259 patent. For added
`
`convenience, these correlations are laid out in Table 2 below:
`
`
`
`‘
`
`‘259 Patent term
`
`entity instance
`entity type
`relation instance
`relation type
`entity instance table
`entity definition table
`relation instance table
`relation definition table _
`
`Munz term
`
`.
`
`entity-value relationship entry
`entity—value relationship
`entity—entity relationship entry
`entity-entity relationship
`entity-value relationship table
`schema table
`entity-entity relationship table
`schema table
`
`Table 2
`
`As can clearly be seen from the comparison depicted in Figure 3 below, the Munz table '
`
`structure contains corresponding structures to all of the structures the Examiner found missing from
`
`the prior art of record, as well as to all of the other structures claimed in the ‘259 patent.
`
`is
`
`015
`
`015
`
`

`

`'259 Patent
`Data Structures
`
`
`
`
`Entity Definition Table
` Point of
`Nlovfity for
`Entity Instance
`
`a c aims
`Tables
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`El-I
`
`Ef‘zl‘zla'lzf'”
`
`ngnm
`
`i
`
`Relation Definition Table
`
`
`
`um“—
`
`n——- Company
`um m —lzazl
`
`Munz Reference Data
`Structures
`
`
`Company tabcode 2'
`l—m
`
`Entity-Value
`Relationship
`“mes
`
`Entity-Value
`Tables
`
`
`
`
` n-I
`
`
`
`
`Elma—n
`
`
`l_M
`
`
`
`i
`
`Entity-Entity
`Relationship
`entries
`
`Figure 3
`
`14
`
`k 016
`
`016
`
`

`

`To further demonstrate the correlations between the Munz tables and the ‘259 tables, shown
`
`below are two tables from FIG. 22 of Munz I, which represent an entity instance table and a relation
`
`instance table, and the corresponding two tables from FIGS 7-1 and 7-2 of the ‘259 patent.
`
`’ F... 22. 1mm! um me to implement the daWWEB.
`
`Entity Instance Table
`
`Relation Instance Table
`
`
`.SEEJEJ- IE]
`
`
`LBELJ.
`3‘45:Head. Ref Tagl”
`mu iii
`22-3.1EI3-M-333
`.3 “3% IE
`-4I-EJ Iii
`
`‘
`
`FlG- 7-2
`Entity Instance Table
`
`*
`
`FIG. 7-1
`Relation Instance Table
`
`The “Person Name” table from Munz contains entity instances, as shown by the “ID” (e. g.
`
`453, 512) and “value” (e. g. SMITH, GREEN) data stored in each column. The corresponding
`
`“T.Companies” table from the ‘259 patent also contains entity instances, as shown by the “EiN” (e. g.
`
`15
`
`017
`
`017
`
`

`

`.1, .2., .3) and “Bi” (e. g. Allen’s Automobiles, Bob’s Books Inc.) data stored in each column. The
`
`“Person Leads” table from Munz contains relationinstances, as shown by the “ID” (e. g. 453, 512)
`
`values stored in the left hand column and the related “ID” (e.g. 325, 679) values stored in the right
`
`hand col