Lowry, In re, 07
| Decision Date | 26 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 07,No. 93-1558,07,93-1558 |
| Citation | 32 F.3d 1579,32 USPQ2d 1031 |
| Parties | , 32 U.S.P.Q.2d 1031 In re Edward S. LOWRY (Serial/181,105). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Barry N. Young, Digital Equip. Corp., of Maynard, MA, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Denis G. Maloney.
Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., of Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. and Murriel E. Crawford, Associate Sol.
Before RICH, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judge.
Edward S. Lowry appeals the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' rejection of all claims in Patent Application Serial No. 07/181,105. On July 30, 1993, the Board reversed the rejection of claims 1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 101 (1988). The Board also affirmed the rejection of claims 1 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103 (1988) and claims 20 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 102(e) (1988). This court reverses.
Lowry's patent application--"Data Processing System Having a Data Structure with a Single, Simple Primitive"--relates to the storage, use, and management of information residing in a memory. The PTO does not dispute the features and advantages of Lowry's claimed invention. The invention provides an efficient, flexible method of organizing stored data in a computer memory.
A memory stores data according to a particular order or arrangement. Application programs use stored data to perform specified functions. A data model provides the framework for organizing and representing information used by an application program. Data models define permissible data structures--organizational structures imposed upon the data used by the application program--compatible with particular data processing systems. Data structures are the physical implementation of a data model's organization of the data. Data structures are often shared by more than one application program.
The prior art contains data models and data structures. Prior art data models are generally one of two kinds: functionally expressive or structurally expressive data models. Functionally expressive data models enable complex nested operations using large blocks of data. These data models, however, are limited to a narrow class of applications and generally require more complex interfaces to functionality. Structurally expressive data models, on the other hand, define more varied data structures capable of representing accurately complex information. These data models, however, make complex nested operations on large blocks of data quite difficult.
Lowry's invention seeks to optimize both structural and functional expressiveness. Lowry discloses a data structure accessible by many different application programs. Lowry's data structure is based upon the "Attributive data model." The Attributive data model represents complex information in terms of attributes and relationships between attributes. According to Lowry's specification, "[a]n attribute expresses the idea that one thing is attributed to another thing." Thus, the Attributive data model capitalizes on the concept that a database is a collection of attributions, whereby information is represented in terms of its characteristics and relationships to other information.
In accordance with the Attributive data model, Lowry's data structure comprises a plurality of attribute data objects (ADOs) stored in memory. An ADO is a single primitive data element "compris[ing] sequences of bits which are stored in the memory According to the claimed invention, ADOs have both hierarchical and non-hierarchical interrelationships. A few specific rules govern these relationships. Because the claimed invention uses single ADOs governed by simple organizational rules, Lowry asserts that it may flexibly and accurately represent complex objects and relationships. The hierarchical relationships form a conceptual pyramidal structure. Hierarchical correlations describe "holding" or "being held" relationships. An ADO can "hold" one or more other ADOs. Each ADO, however, can "be held" by only one other ADO. Thus, while capable of holding many others, an ADO can be held by only one other ADO. One ADO, called the apex ADO, holds at least one other ADO but is held by no other ADO. This apex ADO is the only ADO that lacks a being-held relationship. From the apex ADO, the hierarchical relationships fan out in a pyramidal structure.
as electrical (or magnetic) signals that represent information." It contains information used by the application program and information regarding its relationship with other ADOs. Lowry asserts that his data structure is functionally expressive by virtue of its representation of information in terms of attributes. Lowry also states that "[s]tructural expressiveness is achieved by making that primitive data object extremely simple and allowing for highly unconstrained interconnections between attribute instances."
ADOs also have non-hierarchical relationships. These are essentially "pointing" relationships between ADOs. There are two basic types of ADOs: (1) element data objects, which refer to only themselves, and (2) relation data objects, which refer to one other ADO, called a referent ADO. A referent ADO is merely an ADO that a relation data object refers to. Each ADO can be a referent ADO for more than one ADO. According to Lowry's specification, this arrangement of hierarchically and non-hierarchically related single primitive ADOs facilitates software operations such as retrieval, addition, and removal of information in the data structure.
Claims 1 through 5 claim a memory containing a stored data structure. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A memory for storing data for access by an application program being executed on a data processing system, comprising:
a data structure stored in said memory, said data structure including information resident in a database used by said application program and including:
a plurality of attribute data objects stored in said memory, each of said attribute data objects containing different information from said database;
a single holder attribute data object for each of said attribute data objects, each of said holder attribute data objects being one of said plurality of attribute data objects, a being-held relationship existing between each attribute data object and its holder attribute data object, and each of said attribute data objects having a being-held relationship with only a single other attribute data object, thereby establishing a hierarchy of said plurality of attribute data objects;
a referent attribute data object for at least one of said attribute data objects, said referent attribute data object being nonhierarchically related to a holder attribute data object for the same at least one of said attribute data objects and also being one of said plurality of attribute data objects, attribute data objects for which there exist only holder attribute data objects being called element data objects, and attribute data objects for which there also exist referent attribute data objects being called relation data objects; and
an apex data object stored in said memory and having no being-held relationship with any of said attribute data objects, however, at least one of said attribute data objects having a being-held relationship with said apex data object.
Claims 6 through 19 claim a data processing system executing an application program,
containing a database, a central processing unit (CPU) means for processing the application program, and a memory means for holding the claimed data structure. Claims 20-23, 25, and 28 specify methods of accessing, creating, adding, and erasing ADOs within the data structure. Claim 24 specifies a method for creating a data structure. Claims 26, 27, and 29 claim methods of creating and erasing non-hierarchical relationships between ADOs and referent ADOs.
The examiner rejected claims 1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 101 as non-statutory subject matter. The examiner also rejected claims 1 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103 as obvious in light of U.S. Patent No. 4,774,661 (Kumpati). Finally, the examiner rejected claims 20 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 102(e) as anticipated by Kumpati.
The Board reversed the 35 U.S.C. Sec. 101 rejection. The Board found that claims 1 through 5, directed to a memory containing stored information, as a whole, recited an article of manufacture. The Board concluded that the invention claimed in claims 1 through 5 was statutory subject matter.
When evaluating patentability under sections 102 and 103, the Board failed to give patentable weight to the claimed data structure. The Board stated that the claims on appeal specify relationships between the ADOs stored in the memory. The Board analogized Lowry's data structure comprised of ADOs to printed matter and relied on this statement from In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed.Cir.1983):
Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Although the printed matter must be considered, in that situation it may not be entitled to patentable weight.
In Gulack, this court concluded that "the critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." Id. at 1386 (footnote omitted). The Board therefore framed the question as whether a new, nonobvious functional relationship exists between the printed matter (data structure with ADOs) and the substrate (memory). The Board determined that Lowry did not show such a functional relationship. Thus,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Nuijten
...was not. Oral Arg. at 00:44:41-00:45:18, available at http:// www. cafc.uscourts.gov/oralarguments/mp3/06-1371.mp3 (citing In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed.Cir.1994), and In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed.Cir.1995) (order)). Under the "printed matter" doctrine, if the only distinction betwe......
-
Ex parte Selinger
...Ex parte Nehls, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1883, 1888-1890 (BPAI 2008) (comparing In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1994), with In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). The Board determined that the sequences recited in the claims were non-functional descriptive material that could not render......
-
Turbocare Div. Of Demag Delaval v. General Elec., Civ.A. 95-30069-MAP.
...while claim interpretation is solely for a court, anticipation is a question of fact. In re Graves, 69 F.3d at 1151; In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1994); Scripps, 927 F.2d at 1576. However, this concession does not necessarily mandate a jury or bench trial. Thus, if there are no ......
-
Ex parte Johnson
... ... limitations when determining patentability of an invention ... over the prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, ... 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, ... 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "Claims must be ... ...
-
Bioinformatics: The New Software Patent Frontier
...and In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982), Arrhythmia Research Tech. V. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992), In re Lowrey 32 F.3d 1579, (Fed. Cir. 1994), In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994), and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP), ...
-
Avoid On-Sale Bar by Filing Early Both in the United States and China Post-Helsinn
...database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. Endnotes 1. E.g. , In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (data recited to reside in computer memory is not “printed matter,” and thus not subject to the rule); In re Bernhart, 417......
-
Recalibrating Functional Claiming: A Way Forward
...database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. Endnotes 1. E.g. , In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (data recited to reside in computer memory is not “printed matter,” and thus not subject to the rule); In re Bernhart, 417......
-
When 30 Years of Practice Goes Against You: Patent Venue Ruling 'Ignores' Supreme Court Precedent
...22, 2014); HTC Corp. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLC, No. IPR2014-01154, Paper No. 40, at 40 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2015). 54. In re Lowry , 32 F.3d 1579, 1582–83 (Fed. Cir. 1994), states, “[t]he printed matter cases have no factual relevance where ‘the invention as defined by the claims require......
-
Composing the Law: An Interview with Derrick Wang, Creator of the Scalia/Ginsburg Opera
...database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. Endnotes 1. E.g. , In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (data recited to reside in computer memory is not “printed matter,” and thus not subject to the rule); In re Bernhart, 417......