Ex Parte Busch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2014

11320428 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/320,428 12/29/2005 Carsten Busch 2005P00301 US (S21.035) 7889
52025 7590 03/20/2014
SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
GEBRESENBET, DINKU W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2014 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CARSTEN BUSCH and SABINE FINKE
____________

Appeal 2011-010712
Application 11/320,428
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and J. JOHN LEE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-010712
Application 11/320,428

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from final rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention relates to database management systems.
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal and recites:
1. A computer implemented method of creating a database
object using an existing database object, comprising:
receiving, from a first user, a selection of a source
database object in a first application, the source database object
having a first predefined database object type of a first database
management system;
storing a reference to the selected source database object
in association with a user identifier associated with the first
user;
receiving an indication to create a new database object in
a second application based on the source database object and on
a second predefined database object type of the first database
management system, the second database object type being
different from the first database object type;
determining if a user from whom the indication was
received is associated with the user identifier associated with
the stored reference; and
if the user from whom the indication was received is
associated with the user identifier associated with the stored
reference, creating the new database object of the second
predefined database object type in the second application using
the referenced source database object.

Appeal 2011-010712
Application 11/320,428

3

REJECTION
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bergen (US 5,450,581) and Berstis (US 2005/0240866 A1).

ANALYSIS
In the final rejection on appeal, the Examiner relied on Bergen for
disclosing “a second predefined database object type of the first database
management system” and “creating the new database object of the second
predefined database object type,” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and
21. (See Final Rej. 3-4.) Specifically, the Examiner pointed to the statement
in Bergen that “[t]he target computer has a relational database management
system (RDBMS) that is different from the source database management
system type.” (Id. 3 (quoting Bergen, col. 4 ll. 7-9) (emphasis added).) In
essence, the Examiner found that the RDBMS types of Bergen read on the
database object types of claim 1. (Final Rej. 3; Ans. 10-11.) Appellants
argue the Examiner erred because Bergen discloses database objects in
different database management systems, not different database object types
in the same database management system, as recited in the independent
claims. (App. Br. 6-8.)
We are persuaded the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence
to support a prima facie case of obviousness. An RDBMS in Bergen is
described as a relational database management system, not a database object
type. (Bergen, col. 4 ll. 7-9.) In effect, the Examiner did not show whether
Bergen disclosed—or would have taught or suggested to a person of
ordinary skill in the art—creating a database object of a different database
Appeal 2011-010712
Application 11/320,428

4
object type within the same database management system, as is recited in
each of independent claims 1, 11, and 21.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 as being obvious under
§ 103(a) is not sustained.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

dw