Ex Parte Daschakowsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

11798727 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

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.
11/798,727 05/16/2007 Klaus Daschakowsky 0010-259001/2006P00258US0 6771
56056 7590 11/02/2017
BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP
C/O CPA Global
900 Second Avenue South
Suite 600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
KHAKHAR, NIRAV K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
uspto@brakehughes.com
docketing@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KLAUS DASCHAKOWSKY, DIRK FRAUENFELD, and
PETER SCHLIEPER1
Appeal 2017-006276
Application 11/798,727
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—11, and 13—17, all the pending
claims in the present application. Claims 2, 12, and 18—20 are canceled. See
Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants name SAP SE as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-006276
Application 11/798,727
The present invention relates generally to migrating data from at least
one data source to at least one data target. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for migrating business objects from a source to
a target, the system comprising:
a migration object associated with a business object and
used to control a conversion of source data at the source to target data
at the target, the migration object being independent of the source and
including:
a pre-defmed data structure defining a format of a
data file into which the source data is exported; and
at least one pre-defmed migration rule used to
generate the target data according to at least the data file; and
a migration program that (1) exports, using a processor,
the source data into the predefined data structure format, and
(2) migrates, using the processor, the source data in the predefined
data structure format to the target according to the migration object,
wherein the migration program stores a delete record in the target for
each source data record included in the migrated source data, each
delete record comprising an identifier of the migration object and a
delete function configured to remove a corresponding migrated source
data record from the target.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:2
Rl. Claims 1, 3—9, 11, and 13—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abrams (US 6,151,608, Nov. 21, 2000)
and Rothschild (US 6,567,823 Bl, May 20, 2003);
R2. Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
2 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to evaluate
the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101, e.g., whether claim 1 recites
no more than software per se, logic, or a data structure (e.g., an abstraction)
that does not fall within any statutory category. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d
1354, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
2
Appeal 2017-006276
Application 11/798,727
unpatentable over Abrams, Rothschild, and Ganesh (US 6,295,610 Bl,
Sept. 25, 2001).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Abrams and Rothschild
collectively teaches or suggests a delete record, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend that “Rothschild discloses no more than a change
propagation method that uses a log file already available in a database
management system to recover from failures, where the change propagation
method includes the use of delete statements” (App. Br. 13), but “[w]hat
Rothschild does not disclose or suggest is Appellants’ claimed ‘delete
record’” {id. at 14). Specifically, Appellants contend that “Rothschild does
not disclose or suggest a [delete] record that includes both (1) ‘an identifier
of the migration object’ and (2) ‘a delete function configured to remove a
corresponding migration source data record from the target,’ as claimed”
{id.).
In response, the Examiner explains that he “relies on Rothschild at
cols. 7 and 8 to demonstrate how this limitation is disclosed by Rothschild”
(Ans. 13; see also Advisory Action dated January 27, 2015, continuation
sheet 2) and that “[w]hile [it] is true [that the Final rejection cited only to
portions of col. 8 of Rothschild], the entire disclosure of Rothschild is and
was intended to be considered as the basis of [the] rejection” (Ans. 13). For
3
Appeal 2017-006276
Application 11/798,727
example, the Examiner directs Appellants to columns 7 and 8 of Rothschild
in the additional reasoning set forth in the Advisory Action.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that “Rothschild’s ‘migration
definition’ . . . bears the same characteristics and capabilities as the claimed
‘migration object’ . . ., [t]he claimed feature of the storage of ‘a delete record
in the target’ is disclosed by Rothschild at col. 7, line 43 through col. 8,
line 3 . . ., [and] [t]he delete statements are later processed . . . reads on the
claimed delete function” (id. at 14). We agree with the Examiner.
For example, Rothschild discloses a “method for a migration from a
source table to a target table in a [database management system (DBMS)]
which uses the log file .... For each source table in a migration definition
files containing delete statements ... are provided” (Abstract). Rothschild
further discloses “delete statements are created on a target row by target row
basis . . . using the migration’s select statement” (7:58—63) and “the delete
statements are depicted as written into delete statement files 10 to be later
processed, as shown in FIG. 2 subroutine 13 to produce an effect on the
target table 15” (8:4—7).
In other words, it is Rothschild’s migration definition files including
(i) log files and (ii) delete statements that the Examiner is relying on to teach
and/or suggest the claimed delete record comprising an identifier of the
migration object and a delete function in part because the delete statements
are depicted as delete statement files that are processed to produce an effect
on the target. Appellants’ contentions fail to persuasively distinguish
Rothschild’s migration definition files from the claimed “delete record,” i.e.,
fail to explain why Rothschild’s migration definition and delete statements
are distinguishable from the claimed delete record.
4
Appeal 2017-006276
Application 11/798,727
Instead, Appellants merely argue that “Rothschild discloses no more
than a change propagation method that uses a log file . . . where the change
propagation method includes the use of delete statements” (App. Br. 13),
without providing any meaningful analysis that expiates why Rothschild
teachings are distinguishable from the claimed delete record. That is,
Appellants do not explain why Rothschild’s migration definition is
distinguishable from the claimed identifier or why Rothschild’s delete
statement is distinguishable from the claimed delete function. We decline to
examine the claims sua sponte, looking for distinctions over the prior art.
Cf. In re Baxter TravenolLabs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is
not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than
argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior
art.”). See also Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843 at
*3^4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 11 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants do not
argue separate patentability for the dependent claims. See App. Br. 8—16.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3—11 and 13—
17.
New Arguments in Reply Brief
In the Reply Brief, Appellants present the following new arguments:
(1) “Rothschild is silent about creating the delete statement 10 ‘for each
source data record’” (Reply Br. 3—4); (2) “[w]hile Rothschild describes that
the delete statement is executed on the target table 15 . . ., Rothschild does
5
Appeal 2017-006276
Application 11/798,727
not describe that the delete statement is necessarily ‘stored in the target’ as
required by claim 1” (Reply Br. 4); and (3) “Rothschild ... is silent about
any selective revocation of the migration” (Reply Br. 4).
The Examiner’s statement of rejection for claim 1 in the Answer
follows the combined statements of rejection in the Final Rejection and the
Advisory Action. Appellants thus could have presented the new argument in
support of the claims in the Appeal Brief, such that we would have had
benefit of the Examiner’s evaluation of the argument in the responsive
Answer. Appellants do not explain what good cause there might be to
consider the new arguments. Therefore, these belated arguments are
technically waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474
(BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to
make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal
to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.”).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections R1 and R2.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6