Ex Parte Catahan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2013

10703053 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013)

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