Ex Parte Berger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 6, 2010

10637339 (B.P.A.I. May. 6, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BEN BERGER, ZIV HELLMAN, HAYDEN MARCHANT,
RANNEN MEIR, BORIS MELAMED, and ZVI SCHREIBER
____________________

Appeal 2009-004098
Application 10/637,3391
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: May 6, 2010
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAMES
R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed August 8, 2003. The real party in interest is International
Business Machines Corp. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2009-004098
Application 10/637,339

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-
13, 15-26, 28-33, 35, 36, 38-53, 55-57, 65, 69-84, 88-107, 109, and 110
under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Claims 8, 14, 27, 34, 37, 54, 58-64,
66-68, 85-87, and 108 have been canceled. The Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a system and method for deriving a
transformation that maps different data schemas into an ontology model, and
that transforms data conforming with a source data schema into data
conforming to a target data schema. The system and method utilize an
ontology model including classes and properties of classes. The system and
method provide the ontology model, a source data schema, and a target data
schema (which is different from the source data schema), identify several
different data constructs, map the data constructs to the model, and derive a
transformation based on the mappings. (Spec. 7, ll. 3-20; 8, l. 18 to 9, l. 3;
16, ll. 3-40.)2

2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal Brief (“Br.”)
filed July 25, 2007. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed November 1, 2007.
Appeal 2009-004098
Application 10/637,339

3
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A method executed in a computer for deriving a
transformation for transforming first data conforming with a
source data schema to second data conforming to a target data
schema, the method comprising:
providing an ontology model including classes and
properties of classes;
providing the source data schema;
providing the target data schema, wherein the target data
schema is different from the source data schema;
identifying a first primary data construct within the
source data schema;
identifying a first secondary data construct within the
first primary data construct;
identifying a second primary data construct within the
target data schema;
identifying a second secondary data construct within the
second primary data construct;
generating a first mapping for mapping the first primary
data construct to a corresponding class of the ontology model;
generating a second mapping for mapping the first
secondary data construct to a property of the corresponding
class of the ontology model;
generating a third mapping for mapping the second
primary data construct to a corresponding class of the ontology
model;
generating a fourth mapping for mapping the second
secondary data construct to a property of the corresponding
class of the ontology model; and
Appeal 2009-004098
Application 10/637,339

4
deriving the transformation, wherein the transformation
is based on the first mapping, the second mapping, the third
mapping, and the fourth mapping.

Reference
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence of
unpatentability:
Silberberg US 6,957,214 B2 Oct. 18, 2005
(filed Jun. 22, 2001)

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-26, 28-33, 35, 36, 38-53,
55-57, 65, 69-84, 88-107, 109, and 110 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Silberberg.

ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ contentions, as well as the findings and
conclusions of the Examiner, the pivotal issue before us is as follows.
Does the Examiner err in finding the Silberberg reference discloses
mapping data constructs to a model and deriving a transformation from the
mappings?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Appellants’ Specification
1. Appellants’ Specification describes deriving transformations for
transforming data from one database schema (template for storing data) into
a different database schema. Appellants’ Specification describes a system
and method that identify a source data schema, a target data schema, and a
Appeal 2009-004098
Application 10/637,339

5
common ontology (generic terminology) model for the schemas. The
Specification also describes identifying primary and secondary data
constructs of the source schema, and primary and secondary data constructs
of the target schema. Appellants explain that their method maps the source
data schema (and its primary and secondary data constructs), and the target
data schema (and its primary and secondary data constructs) into the
ontology model. The Specification describes the method deriving a
transformation from the mappings that transforms data conforming with a
source data schema into data conforming to a target data schema. (Spec. 7,
l. 3 to 9, l. 3; 16, ll. 3-40; Figs. 1, 2, 4.) The transformation directly
transforms a source schema into a target schema, e.g., transforming and
exporting one relational database (schema) into a different relational
database (different schema), or transforming a source XML document
schema into a target XML document schema. (Spec. 6, ll. 1-7; 7, ll. 30-33;
8, ll. 8-10.)

Silberberg Reference
2. Silberberg describes a system of simplified query brokering
enabling users of different domains to access information stored in
distributed databases. (Col. 1, ll. 13-52; col. 2, ll. 7-32.) Put simply,
Silberberg describes translating query terms into generic query terms –
“[s]pecifically, the conceptual translation process translates the high-level
query terms to terms of the generic domain” (col. 8, ll. 27-28). Silberberg
utilizes mappings (mappings of the user domain terminology to generic
ontology terminology) to translate the high-level query terms into generic
query terms – “[t]he concept mappings translate between familiar
Appeal 2009-004098
Application 10/637,339

6
terminology . . . of the user domain to property names, roles, and constraints
of the generic model” (col. 7, ll. 22-26). (Col. 7, l. 20 to col. 8, l. 50.)
Silberberg further describes providing a high-level query in the terminology
of a user’s domain, translating the user domain query terms to generic
ontology query terms – the “high-level query is presented to ADINA, where
the User Domain agents translates [sic] user domain terms to generic
ontology terms based on the user domain mappings stored in the knowledge
base” (col. 8, ll. 13-17). (Col. 8, l. 2 to col. 9, l. 6.) Silberberg also
describes agents that identify data sources (databases containing the desired
information) and further translate the generic queries into native language
queries for each particular data source. (Col. 8, l. 58 to col. 9, l. 38.)
Silberberg explicitly explains that its method does not map ontology
structures (query statement structures and/or data structures) of different
domains between models – “[h]owever, the mappings do not map ontology
structures between models” (col. 7, ll. 26-27). (Col. 7, ll. 20-67.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Burden on Appeal
The allocation of burden requires that the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) produce the factual basis for any rejection in
order to provide an applicant with notice of the reasons why the applicant is
not entitled to a patent on the claim scope sought. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir.
1984); Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (Precedential).
An appellant has the opportunity on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2009-004098
Application 10/637,339

7
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”)
(quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998), overruled in
part on other grounds, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 422
(2007)); Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075.

Anticipation
Anticipation is a question of fact. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] claim is anticipated only
if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly
or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros.,
Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citations
omitted); see also Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2005)(citation omitted).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-26, 28-33, 35, 36, 38-53, 55-57,
103-107, and 110 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Appellants contend that Silberberg does not disclose “numerous
features of claim 1” (Br. 23), including:
“generating a first mapping for mapping the first primary data
construct to a corresponding class of the ontology model;”
“generating a second mapping for mapping the first secondary
data construct to a property of the corresponding class of the
ontology model;” “generating a third mapping for mapping the
second primary data construct to a corresponding class of the
ontology model;” “generating a fourth mapping for mapping
the second secondary data construct to a property of the
Appeal 2009-004098
Application 10/637,339

8
corresponding class of the ontology model;” or “deriving the
transformation, wherein the transformation is based on the first
mapping, the second mapping, the third mapping, and the
fourth mapping,” as in claim 1.
(Br. 23.) The Examiner finds that Silberberg discloses each feature of
Appellants’ independent claim 1 and maintains that the claim is properly
rejected. (Ans. 3-5, 53-61.) Specifically, the Examiner cites Silberberg’s
Figure 3 and disclosure (see col. 7, ll. 30-52, 53-67; col. 8, l. 58 to col. 9, l.
6, and col. 13, ll. 28-34) as disclosing generating mappings for the various
data constructs and deriving a transformation based on the mappings. (Ans.
5.) Accordingly, we decide the question of whether the Examiner erred in
finding the Silberberg reference discloses mapping data constructs to a
model and deriving a transformation from the mappings.
We have carefully reviewed the extensive arguments presented in
Appellants’ Brief (approx. 51 pages of argument and support), as well as
those in the Examiner’s Answer (approx. 72 pages of findings and
argument). We will not reiterate, nor need we address each of these
arguments in detail here. After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree
with Appellants, and we find the Silberberg reference does not disclose
mapping data constructs to a model and deriving a transformation from the
mappings.
We find that Appellants’ claim 1 recites deriving transformations for
transforming data from a target data schema, or template for storing data,
into a different data schema. We also find that Appellants’ claim 1 recites
limitations of providing a source data schema or database, identifying
primary and secondary data constructs of the source data schema, providing
a target data schema, and identifying primary and secondary data constructs
Appeal 2009-004098
Application 10/637,339

9
of the target data schema. Appellants’ claim 1 also recites a limitation of
providing a common ontology model, i.e., generic terminology model for the
schemas. In particular, we find that Appellants’ method maps the source
data schema (and its primary and secondary data constructs), as well as the
target data schema (and its primary and secondary data constructs) into the
ontology model. Appellants’ method then derives a transformation from the
mappings that transforms data conforming with a source data schema into
data conforming to a target data schema. (FF 1.)
The Silberberg reference, on the other hand, describes a system for
simplified query brokering that translates query terms into generic ontology
query terms. Although Silberberg utilizes mappings to translate the query
terms into generic query terms, Silberberg explicitly discloses that it does
not map ontology structures between models. (FF 2.)
Here, the Examiner appears to be performing the idiomatic
“comparison of apples to oranges.” Appellants’ claimed limitations –
mapping of primary and secondary data constructs of the source data schema
and the target data schema into the model, and deriving a transformation
from the mappings – do not read on Silberberg’s disclosure of mapping and
translating terminology. There is simply no explicit or inherent disclosure in
Silberberg of generating mappings to map data constructs to a model, or
“deriving a transformation for transforming first data conforming with a
source data schema to second data conforming to a target data schema”
based on the mappings as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. Even if we were to
equate Appellants’ data constructs with Silberberg’s query terms (as urged
by the Examiner), there is no disclosure in Silberberg of mapping a target
data construct/query terminology to the generic model, much less deriving a
Appeal 2009-004098
Application 10/637,339

10
direct transformation from the user terminology to the target terminology.
Thus, we are constrained by the record before us to find that Silberberg does
not disclose mapping data constructs to a model and deriving a
transformation from the mappings. Each of Appellants’ independent claims
1, 23-26, 28, 50-53, 55, 103-107, and 110 recite limitations of commensurate
scope. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-26, 28-33, 35, 36, 38-53, 55-57, 103-107, and 110.

Rejection of Claims 65, 69-84, 88-102, and 109 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Each of Appellants’ independent claims 65, 84, and 109, while
slightly different in scope, also includes limitations directed to mapping data
schemas to a generic data schema and deriving a transformation from the
mappings. For the reasons set forth previously with respect to claim 1, we
find that Silberberg also does not disclose these limitations. We, therefore,
reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 65, 69-84, 88-102,
and 109 for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, supra.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, we find the Examiner erred in finding the
Silberberg reference discloses mapping data constructs to a model and
deriving a transformation from the mappings.

Appeal 2009-004098
Application 10/637,339

11
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-26, 28-
33, 35, 36, 38-53, 55-57, 65, 69-84, 88-107, 109, and 110 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

REVERSED

rwk

Duke W. Yee
P.O. Box 802333
Yee & Associates, P.C.
Dallas, TX 75380