Ex Parte Bhatt et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 22, 2011

10699170 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANKUR BHATT and RAGHUNANDAN SARANGARAJAN

Appeal 2009-0109341
Application 10/699,170
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAY P. LUCAS, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is SAP Aktiengesellschaft (SAP AG). (App. Br.
1.)
Appeal 2009-010934
Application 10/699,170

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 13-16, 19, and 20. (App. Br. 1.) Claims 3, 5, 9, 11,
12, 17, and 18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for allowing a user to copy
to a target database (28) a data element and a related data element selected
from a source database (20). In particular, upon selecting the data elements
through an export manager interface (16) in the source system (12)
containing the source database (20), the user instructs an export agent (18) to
copy the selected data elements to a specified export data file (22), which is
then transferred to a target system (26) containing the target database (28).
(Fig. 1, Spec. 6, l. 23-spec. 7, l. 16, ll. 13-19.) In the event a reference
export data file is not specified, the export agent (18) converts the selected
data elements to ActiveX Data Object (ADO) specific Extensible Markup
Language (XML) files by data item type. Likely, if a reference file is
specified and the ADO information for the data elements is not identical, the
export agent converts them to ADO XML files by data item type. (Spec. 14,
ll. 7-29.)

Appeal 2009-010934
Application 10/699,170

3
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A method comprising:
accessing at least one data element representing a delta
data change from a source database of a source system, the
delta data change existing in a first collection of data in the
source database;
accessing a related data element from the source
database, the related data element defined to have a relationship
to the at least one data element and affecting a layout of the at
least one data element;
copying the at least one data element and the related data
element to an export data file by converting the at least one data
element and the related data element to ActiveX Data Object
specific extensible markup language files by data type;
transporting the export data file from the source system
to a target system having a target database;
displaying, at the target system, a user interface that
identifies ones of the at least one data element that exist in a
second collection of data stored in the target database, to
prompt a user selection of desired ones of the at least one data
element to be copied in the target database; and
copying selected ones of the at least one data element and
the related data element to the target database.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Yuen US 5,423,033 June 6, 1995
Multer US 6,671,757 B1 Dec. 30, 2003
Howard US 6,768,994 B1 July 27, 2004
Haley US 6,948,133 B2 Sept. 20, 2005
Appeal 2009-010934
Application 10/699,170

4
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10, 13-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 2 as being unpatentable over the combination of Multer,
Haley, and Howard.
2. Claims 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Multer, Haley, Howard, and
Yuen.

Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants argue that the proposed combination of Multer, Haley, and
Howard does not teach or suggest copying a data element and a related data
element to an export data file by converting them to ADO XML files by data
type, as required by independent claim 1. (App. Br. 5-7.) According to
Appellants, albeit Multer discloses transmitting difference information from
a first system to a second system, it does not perform any data conversion to
a plurality of XML files by data type. (Id. at 5.) Likewise, Appellants argue
that Howard’s disclosure does not remedy Multer’s deficiencies since it is

2 Although the Examiner has expressly indicated in the Answer that claims
1, 2, 6-8, 10, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), we
note that the Examiner has set forth the appropriate paragraph from 35
U.S.C. § 103 (a) at page 3 of the Answer. We further note that Appellants
have properly argued the rejection as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Consequently, we will consider the Examiner’s rejection of the cited claims
as being made under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and treat the Examiner’s error as
harmless for purposes of this appeal.

Appeal 2009-010934
Application 10/699,170

5
directed to converting data to XML format to enable the display of the data
on a webpage as opposed to converting the data elements to a plurality of
ADO XML files by data type. (App. Br. 5, Reply Br. 1-3.)

Examiner’s Findings
In response, the Examiner finds that Howard’s disclosure of an XML
parser that obtains record set data from a database to convert the data to
XML via ADO teaches the disputed limitations. (Ans. 9.) Therefore, the
pivotal issue before us is as follows:

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combined disclosures of Multer, Haley, and Howard teaches or suggests
copying a data element and a related data element to an export data file by
converting them to ADO XML files by data type, as recited in independent
claim 1?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).

Appeal 2009-010934
Application 10/699,170

6
Multer
1. Multer discloses a system for synchronizing a first device and a
second device by transmitting difference information therebetween.
(Abst.) In particular, a differencing transmitter (100) extracts data
structure of a requesting device, converts it into difference
information, and forwards the extracted difference to a target device.
If update of certain binary files is required in the target device, the
differencing transmitter extracts differences in known files, and any
new files in the source device, and transmits the extracted difference
information to the target device. (Col. 6, ll. 3-30.)
Howard
2. Howard discloses a database mining and reporting system for
monitoring vehicular activities and reporting the same on a user’s web
browser. (Abst.) The reporting system utilizes a client browser
capable of processing XML style sheets, and capable of running
ActiveX controls to format display of data. The client also supports
Report Editor ActiveX control for modifying the report configuration,
as well as chart ActiveX control for displaying bar and pie charts.
(Col. 10, ll. 8-27.)
3. Upon receiving a request from the client, the Report Editor XML
Parser obtains from the server database via ADO the data report that
the user intends to modify, it converts the report to XML format, and
then sends the converted report to the client for processing. (Col. 10,
ll. 31-40.)
Appeal 2009-010934
Application 10/699,170

7
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness Rejection
We find error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1,
which recites, inter alia, copying a data element and a related data element
to an export data file by converting them to ADO XML files by data type.
We find that the combination of Multer and Howard teaches or suggests, at
best, upon receiving a request from a client device, a server device copies a
difference file containing reports obtained from the server database via
ADO, and converts the reports to XML format before forwarding them to
the client. (FF. 1, 3.) We agree with Appellants that while the proposed
combination teaches converting a copied difference report file to an ADO
XML format before exporting it to the client, it does not identify a data
element and a related data element (affecting the layout of the data element)
that are converted to the cited format by data type. Further, even if we were
to find that the report itself and its accompanying format teach the data
element and its related data element, respectively, the proposed combination
would still fall short of teaching that the data element and the related data
element are each converted into a separate ADO XML file by data type, as
required by the claim.
Next, we find that since Haley is merely relied upon to buttress
Multer’s teaching of a data element/related data element pair (Ans. 4), it
fails to remedy the noted deficiencies of the Multer-Howard combination.
Since Appellants have shown at least one error in the rejection of
claim 1, we need not address Appellants’ other arguments pertaining to that
Appeal 2009-010934
Application 10/699,170

8
rejection. It follows that Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of Multer, Howard, and Haley renders
claim 1 unpatentable.
Claims 2, 6-8, 10, 13-16, 19, and 20 recite the limitations of claim 1
discussed above, we find that Appellants have also shown error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of those claims.
Since claim 4 recites the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, and
Yuen does not cure the deficiencies noted above, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 is in error.

V. DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 13-16,
19, and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

llw