Ex Parte Buchmann et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 12, 2012

10977329 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 12, 2012)

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 2012-001902
Application 10/977,329
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THU A. DANG, and ANDREW J. DILLON,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 In a prior Decision (Appeal Number 2009-007260, decided March 5, 2010,
http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2009007260-
03-05-2010-1) (“Decision”), we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Aigner.
Appeal 2012-001902
Application 10/977,329

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (b).
We reverse.

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 CLAIMS
Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below:
1. A non-transitory 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, the definition of the
business object type including an object key, the creating of the
definition of the business object type including creating the object key
in accordance with an object key of the data model.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Appeal 2012-001902
Application 10/977,329

3
Aigner US 2004/0187140 A1 Sept. 23, 2004
Andrews US 2003/0115487 A1 June 19, 2003
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Aigner in view of Andrews.

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Aigner in
further view of Andrews would have suggested “creating a definition of the
business object type” wherein “the definition of the business object type
including an object key” and “the creating of the definition of the business
object type including creating the object key in accordance with an object
key of the data model” (claim 1)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Andrews
1) Andrews discloses a catalog that organizes the permitted role
settings by class, interface, and method, wherein the entries in the catalog
show the permitted roles for various methods and objects being denoted by
their class identifier (CLSID), a globally unique identifier identifying the
object’s class (p. 7,¶[0077]; Fig. 11A).
2) The catalog also lists the application identifier (APPID) of each
application, the authentication level for calls to the application, and a list of
class identifiers (CLSIDs) belonging to the application (p. 7, ¶[0079]; Fig.
11C).
Appeal 2012-001902
Application 10/977,329

4

IV. ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Aigner discloses “creating a definition of the
business object type” wherein “for an object model 144, a user is able to
create object types using user interface (UI) tool 148 to create UI
‘personalizations’ to include various types of objects such as ‘objects, recent
objects, related objects’ etc 0050]” (Ans.5). Although the Examiner admits
that “Aigner does not explicitly disclose the creation of an object key
associated with the object type in accordance with an object key of a data
model” (id.), the Examiner then finds that Andrews discloses such feature
wherein “the class identifiers being object keys” and “the application
identifier (APPID) for an application” is “the object identifier for data
model” (id.).
However, Appellants contend that “Andrews at most relates to class
identifiers that represent objects” but “fails to teach or suggest a ‘creating a
definition of the business object type’ much less a ‘definition including an
object key,’ much less ‘creating the object key in accordance with an object
key of the data model’” (App. Br. 12-13 (emphasis omitted)). Upon review
of the record, we agree with Appellants.
As we found in our previous Decision, “Aigner’s system ‘constructs’
and ‘generates’ business object ‘classes’” and “constructs business objects
by specifying their attributes (e.g., ‘address’ and ‘country’) and relations,”
which “equate to the ‘data set component’ (e.g., ‘geographic location’) and
‘relations component’ forming Aigner’s business object type definitions”
(Decision 6-7). Thus, we concluded that “a skilled artisan would have
understood Aigner’s system as ‘creating a definition of the business object
Appeal 2012-001902
Application 10/977,329

5
type’” (Decision 7). Accordingly, we see no error with the Examiner
finding Aigner discloses “creating a definition of the business object type”
wherein “for an object model 144, a user is able to create object types using
user interface (UI) tool 148 to create UI ‘personalizations’ to include various
types of objects” (Ans.5).
However, we do not find any teachings or even suggestions in the
portions of Aigner and Andrews cited by the Examiner of “the definition of
the business object type including an object key” and “the creating of the
definition of the business object type including creating the object key in
accordance with an object key of the data model,” as required by claim 1.
That is, the portions of Andrews cited by the Examiner merely discloses a
catalog wherein the entries in the catalog show objects being denoted by
their CLSID (FF 1) and that the catalog also lists a list of CLSIDs belonging
to the application (FF 2).
Though the Examiner finds that, in Andrews, “the class identifiers
[CLSIDs] being object keys” and “the application identifier (APPID) for an
application” is “the object identifier for data model” (Ans. 5 (emphasis
omitted)), we are unsure how Andrews’ CLSIDs could be “an object key”
which is included in a “definition of the business object type” as required by
claim 1. Similarly, we fail to see how Andrews’ application identifier
APPID could be “an object key of the data model” wherein the “object key”
(i.e., the CLSIDs, as defined by the Examiner) is created in accordance
therewith. That is, we are unsure how Andrews’ creating of a CLSID
(object key) could be in accordance with the APPID (object key of the data
model), as the Examiner suggests, let alone how Aigner’s creating of a
definition of business object type could include such creating step.
Appeal 2012-001902
Application 10/977,329

6
Since the Examiner has not made a clear distinction as to what
teachings of Andrews comprise or would have suggested the “object key”
included in “the definition of the business object type” or “an object key of
the data model” wherein the object key is created “in accordance with an
object key of the data model ,” the Examiner has failed to meet the initial
burden of proof required for the rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of representative claim 1 over Aigner in view of Andrews. Independent
claims 10 and 19 recite similar limitations and thus stand with claim 1.
Thus, we also reverse the rejection of independent claims 10 and 19, and 2-
9, 11-18, and 20-23 depending respectively from claims 1, 10, and 19 over
Aigner in view of Andrews.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) is
reversed.

REVERSED

llw