In re Lowry, 1994
Lowry’s patent application, titled “Data Processing System Having a Data Structure with a Single, Simple Primitive,” related to the storage, use, and management of information residing in a memory. The invention provided 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.
Claims 1 through 5 claimed a memory containing a stored data structure. Claim 1 was 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 claimed 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 specified methods of accessing, creating, adding, and erasing ADOs within the data structure. Claim 24 specified a method for creating a data structure. Claims 26, 27, and 29 claimed methods of creating and erasing non-hierarchical relationships between ADOs and referent ADOs.
The USPTO Examiner rejected claims 1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. Section 101 as non-statutory subject matter. The examiner also rejected claims 1 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. Section 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. Section 102(e) as anticipated by Kumpati. The Board reversed the 35 U.S.C. Section 101 rejection. The Board found that claims l 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. But 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 specified relationships between the ADOs stored in the memory. The Board analogized Lowry’s data structure 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.
The Federal Circuit stated that the Board erroneously extended a printed matter rejection under sections 102 and 103 to a new field in this case, which involves information stored in a memory. The Federal Circuit stated that this case was distinguishable from the printed matter cases because the printed matter cases only “dealt with claims defining as the invention certain novel arrangements of printed lines or characters, useful and intelligible only to the human mind” and have no factual relevance where “the invention as defined by the claims requires that the information be processed not by the mind but by a machine, the computer.” Lowry’s data structures, which according to Lowry greatly facilitate data management by data processing systems, are processed by a machine. Indeed, they are not accessible other than through sophisticated software systems. The Federal Circuit concluded that printed matter cases have no factual relevance here, nor are the data structures analogous to printed matter. Lowry’s ADOs did not represent merely underlying data in a database. ADOs contain both information used by application programs and information regarding their physical interrelationships within a memory. Lowry’s claims dictated how application programs manage information. Thus, Lowry’s claims defined functional characteristics of the memory.
Contrary to the PTO’s assertion, Lowry did not claim merely the information content of a memory. Lowry’s data structures, while including data resident in a database, depended only functionally on information content. While the information content affects the exact sequence of bits stored in accordance with Lowry’s data structures, the claims required specific electronic structural elements which imparted a physical organization on the information stored in memory. Lowry’s invention managed information.
Lowry did not seek to patent the Attributive data model in the abstract. Nor did he seek to patent the content of information resident in a database. Rather, Lowry’s data structures imposed a physical organization on the data.
In Lowry’s invention, the stored data adopted no physical “structure” per se. Rather, the stored data existed as a collection of bits having information about relationships between the ADOs. According to the Federal Circuit, this is the essence of electronic Structure. More than mere abstraction, the data structures are specific electrical or magnetic structural elements in a memory. Lowry’s data structures were physical entities that provide increased efficiency in computer operation. They are not analogous to printed matter.
Even assuming that data objects and data structures are analogous to printed matter, the PTO did not establish that the ADOs, within the context of the entire claims, lacked a new and nonobvious functional relationship with the memory. The ADOs follow a particular sequence that enables more efficient data processing operations on stored data. The ADOs facilitate addition, deletion, and modification of information stored in the memory. In sum, the ADO’s perform a function. Gulack requires no more.
With the foregoing in mind, the court turned to the specific prior art rejections
and noted that the Kumpati reference did not disclose Lowry’s ADOs and their specific hierarchical and non-hierarchical relationships.
Lowry’s claimed invention involved an organization of information and its interrelationships which Kumpati neither discloses nor suggests. Kumpati also did not render Lowry’s claims obvious. The Federal Circuit held that the Board erred in holding otherwise. Claims 1 through 19 are, as a whole, were not obvious in light of Kumpati.
Because Kumpati does not contain all limitations of claims 20 through 29, the Board erred in holding these claims anticipated by Kumpati. Therefore, the Federal Circuit reversed the section 102 rejection of claims 20 through 29.
The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board erred by denying patentable weight to Lowry’s data structure limitations.