Ex Parte Catahan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 25, 201310703053 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/703,053 11/05/2003 Nardo B. Catahan JR. OIC0053US 9296 60975 7590 11/25/2013 CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP 11401 CENTURY OAKS TERRACE BLDG. H, SUITE 250 AUSTIN, TX 78758 EXAMINER HO, BINH VAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/25/2013 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 NARDO B. CATAHAN JR., SHEKHAR P. KALE, SHAILENDRA GARG, MARIA THERESA BARNES LEON, and RAMASWAMY SUNDARARAJAN1 ________________ Appeal 2011-006040 Application 10/703,053 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Oracle Corporation is the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2011-006040 Application 10/703,053 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–5, 13, 22–24, and 28. Claims 6–12, 14–21, 25–27, and 29–31 are canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Invention Appellants invented a method of defining an order class which includes multiple data elements that are common to various order types and that identifies relationships of an order with various entities related to the order. Abstract. In defining an order class, custom data is added through a process of opening a custom data schema, locating tags for custom data to be added, and adding custom data elements to the located tags. Spec., Fig. 4 and ¶¶ [0050]–[0054] Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below, with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method in a computer system, the method comprising: defining, using a processor of the computer system, a common data model, wherein the common data model comprises a hierarchical data structure, the hierarchical data structure is configured to represent an order class, the hierarchical data structure comprises Appeal 2011-006040 Application 10/703,053 3 a plurality of common data elements, and a plurality of custom data elements, the common data elements are common to a plurality of order types utilized by a plurality of applications, each of the custom data elements is configured to define application-specific data fields for at least one application of the applications, the order class is configured to identify a plurality of relationships of an order with a plurality of entities related to the order, a definition of the order class is represented as an XML [extensible markup language] schema, and the defining comprises, for each custom data element of the custom data elements, adding the each custom data element to the order class by retrieving a data definition schema for the order class, wherein the data definition schema comprises the each custom data element, and the each custom data element is of a custom data type, retrieving a custom data schema for the custom data type, locating a tag in the custom data schema relating to the custom data type, and adding the custom data element to the tag; receiving, at the computer system, a collection of order data from a source application, wherein the collection of order data is organized in a source data format of the source application; Appeal 2011-006040 Application 10/703,053 4 performing a first transformation operation on the collection of order data using the common data model, wherein the first transformation operation is performed by the processor, the first data transformation operation transforms the collection of order data from a source data format of the source application into a common data format, the common data format is defined based on the order class, and the common data format comprises the plurality of common data elements; defining an order line sub-class using the processor, wherein the order line sub-class is derived from the order class, the order line sub-class represents an order line within the order, the order line sub-class comprises a set of data elements from the order class, and a set of additional data elements, and the first transformation operation further transforms all data elements in the order line sub-class into the common data format; performing a second transformation operation on the collection of order data, wherein the second transformation operation is performed by the processor, the second transformation operation transforms the collection of order data from the common data format to a destination data format of a destination application; and Appeal 2011-006040 Application 10/703,053 5 sending the collection of order data in the destination data format to the destination application. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 13, 22–24, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (U.S. 2003/0018502 A1; Jan. 23, 2003), Schroeder (U.S. 2002/0099735 A1; July 25, 2002) and Jasen (U.S. 7,162,540 B2; Jan. 9, 2007; filed May 15, 2001). Ans. 4–13. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Rodriguez, Schroeder, and Jasen teaches or suggests “adding the each custom data elements to the order class by . . . locating a tag in the custom data schema relating to the custom data type, and adding the custom data element to the tag,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner relies on the combined teachings and suggestions of Rodriguez and Schroeder to teach or suggest most of the recitations of claim 1. Ans. 4–8. However, the Examiner relies on Jasen to teach or suggest “adding the each custom data element to the order class . . . ,” Ans. 9 (citing Jasen, col. 17, l. 55), “locating a tag in the custom data schema relating to the custom data type,” Ans. 9 (citing Jasen, col. 18, l. 3), “and adding the custom data element to the tag,” Ans. 9 (citing Jasen, col. 17, l. 53–col. 18, l. 54), as recited in claim 1. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Jasen’s XML tags are not tags to which a custom data element is added.” App. Br. 13. Instead, “[t]he cited tags are ‘data’ and are included within ‘site-specific data Appeal 2011-006040 Application 10/703,053 6 fields.’” Id. (citing Jasen, col. 17, l. 65–col. 18, l. 4). In other words, Appellants contend that Jasen does not teach or suggest adding a custom data element to a class by locating a tag and adding the custom data element to the tag because the identified tags in Jasen are part of the custom data that is added to the site-specific data fields in Jasen, not tags to which the custom data is added. The Examiner responds that the breadth of Jasen’s teachings is broader than Appellants appreciate, and that Jasen teaches or suggests “arbitrary data stored in arbitrary objects represented by arbitrary XML tags.” Ans. 13. However, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings and explanation still do not show that Jasen’s XML tags are “tags to which a custom data element is added.” Reply Br. 18. Jasen merely describes a data structure having extensible (i.e., custom) “fields that may be used for Internet service provider, backbone, and carrier prioritization schema as well as other application-specific or site-specific data fields including data such as . . . XML or other markup language tags.” Jasen col. 17, l. 66–col. 18, l. 3. While tagged data, such as XML data, can be added to a custom field, the Examiner’s findings do not show how Jasen builds the XML data or that the use of the extensible fields in Jasen represents adding custom data elements to a tag. The Examiner does not rely on Rodriguez or Schroeder for the disputed recitations. Ans. 9. Therefore, we agree with Appellants, App. Br. 12–14, that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Rodriguez, Schroeder, and Jasen teaches or suggests “adding the each custom data elements to the order class by . . . locating a tag in the custom data schema relating to the custom data type, and adding the custom data element to the tag,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2011-006040 Application 10/703,053 7 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 22 and 28 which contain similar recitations along with their respective dependent claims 2–5, 13, 23, and 24. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 13, 22–24, and 28. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation