Ex Parte Buchmann et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 5, 2010

10977329 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 5, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DANIEL BUCHMANN, WOLFGANG KALTHOFF,
GERD MOSER, RALF PHILIPP, and WOLFGANG WIESE
____________________

Appeal 2009-007260
Application 10/977,329
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: March 5, 2010
____________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-007260
Application 10/977,329

I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “a master data
framework” that “allows the user to create a definition of a business object
type by associating two or more definitions of other business object types”
(Spec. 24, ll. 2-8).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below:

1. A machine-readable storage medium comprising
instructions, which when implemented by one or more
processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the
following operations:

receiving information describing a business object type;
and

in response to user input, creating a definition of the
business object type, the definition being in accordance with a
data model usable to define different business object types, the
data model being a standard data model used in an enterprise
system.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal 2009-007260
Application 10/977,329

Aigner US 2004/0187140 Sep. 23, 2004
(filed on Sep. 8, 2003)

Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Aigner.

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Aigner
teaches “creating a definition of the business object type” (claim 1)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Aigner
1) Aigner discloses a business object modeler that provides a user
interface for constructing business objects (¶ [0009]); and a business object
generator that creates executable versions of a business object (¶¶ [0009]
and [0016]).
2) The business object modeler, its user interface, and the business
object generator are design-time components (¶ [0066] and [0070]) that
generate “the classes and the coding” (¶ [0096]).
3) The user interface allows a user to specify the attributes and
relations of a business object (¶ [0016]).
4) The user interface provides a first attribute specification section
displaying “available attributes” (e.g., “customer,” “employee,” “product,”
“address,” and “country”), which can be selectively added to the business
3
Appeal 2009-007260
Application 10/977,329

object’s current attributes by drag and drop techniques (¶ [0121]; Figs. 5C-
D).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). “[T]he PTO gives
claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999). “In other words, if granting patent protection
on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the public from
practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether
it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.” Id. (citations omitted).

V. ANALYSIS
As to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that “creating a ‘business
4
Appeal 2009-007260
Application 10/977,329

obiect’ is not ‘creating a definition of a business object type,’ as recited in
claim 1” and, thus, Aigner’s system does not create a definition of a
“business object type” (App. Br. 11).
However, the Examiner finds that “Aigner teaches a user interface
demonstrat[ing] the creation of a business object for a composite
application” (Ans. 11). The Examiner further finds that, when creating a
business object, Aigner’s system creates a definition equivalent to the recited
“definition of the business object type” (id.).
Thus, an issue we address on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Aigner teaches “creating a definition of the business object
type” (claim 1).
We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324. Furthermore, our analysis
will not read limitations into the claims from the specification. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “definition” and
“business object type” mean, include, or represent, other than that the
“definition of the business object type” accords with a “data model usable to
define different business object types.” However, Appellants’ disclosure
states that “[t]ypically, a programmer will predefine standard object classes,
referred to in the present specification as object types” (Spec. 1, ll. 5-7;
emphasis added).
Appellants’ disclosure further states that “[o]bject types are blueprints
for describing individual objects using a defined set of class attributes (or
properties)” (Spec. 1, ll. 7-8). The disclosure explains that the invention’s
“object type definitions” adhere to a data model (Spec. 8, ll. 3-4), whereby
5
Appeal 2009-007260
Application 10/977,329

each definition includes: a “data set component” describing the business
object type’s attributes, e.g., “geographic location” (Spec. 9, ll. 3-14); and a
“relations component” specifying relationships between the defined and
other business object types (Spec. 9, ll. 15-21).
With respect to business object types (i.e., classes) and their
instantiated business objects, Appellants’ disclosure also states that “design
time [is] a period in which business object types are defined” (Spec. 4, ll. 20-
22); and that “run time [is] a period in which applications … instantiate data
objects” (Spec. 4, ll. 26-28).
In view of Appellants’ disclosure, we broadly and reasonably interpret
the recited “object type” as meaning an “object class” of an object-oriented
program.
Aigner discloses a business object modeler for constructing business
objects (FF 1); and a business object generator for creating executable
versions of business objects (FF 1). The business object modeler, its user
interface, and the business object generator are design-time components (FF
2) that generate object “classes” and “coding” (FF 2). The user interface
specifies the attributes and relations of a business object (FF 3) by
displaying “available attributes” (e.g., “address” and “country”) that can be
selectively added to a business object’s current attributes (FF 4).
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Aigner’s system “constructs” and
“generates” business object “classes” during “design time” (FF 1-2), which
Appellants acknowledge as a period for defining business object
types/classes as opposed to business object instances (Spec. 4, ll. 20-22 and
26-28). Furthermore, Aigner’s system constructs business objects by
specifying their attributes (e.g., “address” and “country”) and relations (FF
6
Appeal 2009-007260
Application 10/977,329

3), which equate to the “data set component” (e.g., “geographic location”)
and “relations component” forming Aigner’s business object type definitions
(Spec. 9, ll. 3-21). For each of these reasons, a skilled artisan would have
understood Aigner’s system as “creating a definition of the business object
type” (claim 1).
Appellants further argue that “Aigner discusses reception of ‘requests’
and ‘information [to fulfill] requests,’ but fails to discuss a ‘business object
type,’ as recited in claim 1,” and thus “does not describe ‘receiving
information describing a business object type,’ as recited in claim 1” (App.
Br. 9). Like the above-addressed argument, this argument merely asserts
that Aigner is silent as to business object types/classes. In view of our
findings, this argument is not persuasive.
Accordingly, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e).
As Appellants do not provide separate arguments for claims 2-20,
those claims fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We
therefore also affirm the rejection of claims 2-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

VI. CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that claims
1-20 are anticipated by Aigner.

7
Appeal 2009-007260
Application 10/977,329

VII. DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb

SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402

8