Ex Parte Boskovic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2015

12835055 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte SRDJAN BOSKOVIC and DIRK A. GIEBEL1
________________

Appeal 2012-003727
Application 12/835,055
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The Real Party-in-Interest is SAP AG. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-003727
Application 12/835,055

2
SUMMARY

Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–15, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Venkat Prasad,
Exchanging XML with SQL Server 2000 and Reporting Services through the
Web and Web Services, Microsoft Developer Network (2005), available at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa302286.aspx (last visited January
29, 2015 (“Exchanging”) and Christoph Schittko, Troubleshooting Common
Problems with the XmlSerializer, Microsoft Developer Network (2004),
available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa302290.aspx (last
visited January 15, 2015) (“Troubleshooting”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method by which data is
captured in a first processor-based system. The captured data is serialized
into an XML format. The XML-formatted data is transmitted to a second
processor-based system, and the XML-formatted data is deserialized into a
non-XML format. The deserialized data is processed on the second
processor-based system to determine a cause of an error on the first
processor-based system, and the first processor-based system or the second
processor-based system is altered as a function of the processing of the
deserialized data on the second processor-based system. The processing of
the deserialized data on the second processor-based system relates to a
support of the first processor-based system, and the first processor-based
Appeal 2012-003727
Application 12/835,055

3
system is a production system and the second processor-based system is a
test or reference system. Abstract.

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Because Appellants argue independent claims 1, 9, 12, and 15
together, we select claim 1 as representative of the claims on appeal. App.
Br. 11. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:

capturing data in a first processor-based system;

serializing the captured data into an XML format;

transmitting the XML-formatted data to a second
processor-based system;

deserializing the XML-formatted data into a non-XML
format;

processing the deserialized data on the second processor-
based system to determine a cause of an error on the first
processor-based system; and

altering one or more of the first processor-based system
and the second processor-based system via software fixes as a
function of the processing of the deserialized data on the second
processor-based system;

wherein the processing of the deserialized data on the
second processor-based system relates to a support of the first
processor-based system; and

wherein the first processor-based system comprises a
production system and the second processor-based system
comprises a test or reference system for the production system.

Appeal 2012-003727
Application 12/835,055

4
App. Br. 16.

ISSUE
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined
cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 reciting:
Serializing ... data (from the production system) into an XML
format; transmitting the XML-formatted data (to the test
system); deserializing ... [and] processing the de-serialized data
(on the test system); and altering (the production system or the
test system) via software fixes as a function of the processing of
the deserialized data on the (test system).

App. Br. 11.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Troubleshooting reference teaches
diagnosing common problems that occur when converting XML data to
objects. App. Br. 11. Appellants contend that the Troubleshooting reference
is therefore nothing more than a simple user’s guide that merely teaches the
various errors that can occur when building XML-based solutions with the
XMLSerializer and discusses tools and techniques to diagnose those errors.
Id. According to Appellants, the only relevance the reference has to the
claimed subject matter is in addressing problems that may occur in the
serializing and deserializing steps of the claims. Id. at 12.
Appellants also argue that the Exchanging reference teaches saving
and uploading XML data between servers, such as an SQL Reporting Server
and an SQL server. App. Br. 12. Appellants argue that the Exchanging
reference does not disclose using the features of XML serialization and
deserialization to capture data from a production system, transfer it to a test
Appeal 2012-003727
Application 12/835,055

5
system, process the data on the test system, and alter the production system
and/or the test system based on the processing of the production data on the
test system. Id. Appellants contend that merely sending business data over
the Internet, as taught by the Exchanging reference, and troubleshooting
XMLSerializer statements, as taught by the Troubleshooting reference do
not make the claimed invention obvious. Id.
Appellants next argue that the Troubleshooting reference does not
teach the limitation reciting “processing the deserialized data on the [test
system] to determine a cause of an error on the [production] system,” but
merely teaches dealing with problems with the actual deserialization
command, not with errors on a production system. App. Br. 13.
The Examiner responds that the claim terms “production system” and
“test/reference system,” when given their broadest reasonable interpretation,
are interpreted, respectively, as a system that produces data and a system
which tests said data. Ans. 15. The Examiner finds that the Introduction of
the Exchanging reference teaches business data moved across the internet as
XML data. Id.
The Examiner also finds that the .NET and XML web services
subsection of the reference’s Introduction recites the streaming of XML data
between two systems, with the system providing the data representing a
production system and the system receiving the data representing the test
system. Id. The Examiner supports this latter finding by noting that the test
system performs operations on the XML data, as taught by the Introduction
of the Troubleshooting reference. Id.
The Examiner finds further that the Introduction of the
Troubleshooting reference also teaches that the XML Serializer in the .NET
Appeal 2012-003727
Application 12/835,055

6
Framework comes “with its own class of errors that developers need to learn
how to diagnose” and further recites various errors that can occur when
building XML-based solutions with an XML Serializer and the techniques
and tools to diagnose them. Id. The Examiner finds that these teachings, as
well as the explicit recitation of debugging in the Troubleshooting reference
section titled “Debugging Serialization Code,” teach or suggest the
limitations of claim 1 reciting “determin[ing] a cause of an error on the first
processor-based system; and altering one or more of the first processor-
based system and the second processor-based system via software fixes. Id.
Finally, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the
Troubleshooting and Exchanging references because they are part of the
same Microsoft “XML and the .Net Framework.” Further, the XML
programming of the Troubleshooting reference would need to be transferred
over a network, as taught by the Exchanging reference, because XML is
primarily a web services language, as taught by the Introduction of the
Exchanging reference. Ans. 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As an initial matter,
although the claims are read in light of Appellants’ Specification, the claim
terms are not explicitly defined in the Specification and are therefore given
the broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the
Specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004). We therefore adopt the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claim term “first processor-based system comprises a production system” as
meaning a processor based system that produces XML-formatted data, and
the claim term “second processor-based system comprises a test or reference
Appeal 2012-003727
Application 12/835,055

7
system” as meaning a processor-based system that receives and tests the
XML-formatted data received from a production system.
We agree with the Examiner that the Exchanging reference teaches
transmitting XML-formatted data from a first system to a second system.
The Exchanging reference teaches:
Business data is increasingly exposed on the Internet and the
Intranet, and moved across the wire as XML through traditional
Web server calls (HTTP POST), .NET XML Web Services, or
even Microsoft SQL Reporting Server. Unlike the data from
traditional Web server calls (HTTP POST), data from XML
Web Services and SQL Reporting Servers is also accessible
from different platforms through SOAP protocols.

Exchanging Ref. at 1.
Indeed, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize
that the entire purpose of XML Serializing is transforming converted objects
(data) into a readily transportable form. See, e.g., Microsoft Developer
Network, Introducing XML Serialization, available at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/182eeyhh(v=vs.100).aspx
(last visited January 29, 2015) (“Serialization is the process of converting an
object into a form that can be readily transported. For example, you can
serialize an object and transport it over the Internet using HTTP between a
client and a server. On the other end, deserialization reconstructs the object
from the stream”). Moreover, we find that a processor-based production
system is one that produces XML-formatted data for transmission to a
second system.
Appellants contend that the Exchanging reference does not teach or
suggest the serialization or deserialization of data in the processing of that
data, and the altering of the production/test system based on the results of
Appeal 2012-003727
Application 12/835,055

8
that processing. App. Br. 12–13. However, the Examiner has cited the
Troubleshooting reference as teaching these limitations. Ans. 4. “[O]ne
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where …
the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (citing Application of Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757
(1968).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the Troubleshooting
reference teaches receiving XML-formatted data from a production system
and analyzing that data for errors encountered in deserializing the data. We
therefore find that any such processor-based system that so analyzes data for
error constitutes a test or reference system. The Troubleshooting reference
teaches that different types of errors are detected by the deserializer, which
provides exceptions to the user that give information about the nature of the
error. See, e.g., Troubleshooting reference 7–9, “Problems Deserializing
XML.” We also agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would realize, upon receiving such an exception, that an error was
made in serializing the object in the first production computer and would
employ software fixes (such as the XML serializer) to alter the production
and test processor-based systems to correct the errors detected in the
deserializer.
We therefore conclude that it would have been obvious to an artisan
of ordinary skill that the combination of the cited prior art references teach
or suggest the limitations of claim 1 reciting:
[S]erializing ... data (from the production system) into an XML
format; transmitting the XML-formatted data (to the test
system); deserializing ... [and] processing the de-serialized data
(on the test system); and altering (the production system or the
Appeal 2012-003727
Application 12/835,055

9
test system) via software fixes as a function of the processing of
the deserialized data on the (test system).

App. Br. 11.

We consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–15, and 17–20 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc