Ex Parte Driesen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2018

13730753 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018)

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.
13/730,753 12/28/2012 Volker Driesen 34874-851002US 3201
64280 7590 02/02/2018
Mintz Levin/SAP
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
One Financial Center
EXAMINER
HOANG, KEN
Boston, MA 02111 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2018 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):
IPDocketingBOS @mintz.com
IPFileroombos @ mintz. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VOLKER DRIESEN, NICOLAI JORDT, MARTIN MAYER,
WIELAND HOPRICH, ANDREY ENGELKO, STEFFEN MEISSNER,
PETER SCHREIBER, and LEVKE BENTZIEN1
Appeal 2017-007244
Application 13/730,753
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Final Act. 1; App. Br. 4.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. App. Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed Dec. 28, 2012
(claiming benefit of US 61/607,545 filed Mar. 6, 2012); Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.”) filed Nov. 22, 2016; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Apr. 7, 2017.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Feb. 10, 2017; and
Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final Act.”) mailed May 24, 2016.
Appeal 2017-007244
Application 13/730,753
We reverse.
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal generally concerns data processing in
a database and more specifically systems, computer program products, and
methods for processing data in a database structure. The method obtains a
first data-set (first version of a database application) including tables
arranged according to a first schema, which define a first database structure
and a second (desired) database structure. The method generates a copy of a
first portion of the first data-set on a temporary system arranged according to
a second (temporary) schema including a set of aliases. The method then
upgrades the first data-set to generate a second data-set (upgraded database
application) based on the second (desired) database structure, the second
data-set arranged according to an upgrade (third) schema including a second
set of aliases for accessing a third portion of the first data-set. (Spec. 4—
16; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method comprising:
obtaining, using one or more data processors, a first data­
set characterizing a first version of an application, the first data­
set comprising a plurality of tables arranged according to an
original database schema characterizing a first database structure
and a second database structure, the first database structure
characterizing an arrangement of data in the first version of the
application, the second database structure characterizing a
desired arrangement of data in a second version of the
application;
2
Appeal 2017-007244
Application 13/730,753
generating, using one or more data processors, a copy of
a first portion of the first data-set on a temporary system, data of
the temporary system being arranged according to a temporary
database schema, the temporary database schema comprising a
first set of one or more aliases to access a second portion of the
first data-set, the first set of one or more aliases preventing
generation of a copy of the first data-set in entirety, a selective
access to the data of the temporary database schema being
continuously enabled and provided to a client computer operated
by a user when the upgrade of the application is being performed,
the temporary system being operably coupled to the client
computer via a communication network;
upgrading, using one or more data processors, the first
data-set to generate a second dataset associated with an
upgraded application, the updating being based on the second
database structure and being performed asynchronously for a
plurality of users, the second data-set being arranged according
to the second database structure of an upgrade database schema,
the upgrade database schema comprising a second set of one or
more aliases to access a third portion of the first data-set', and
enabling, using one or more data processors, access by the
client computer to the second data-set after the upgrade of the
application.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3—6, 10-13, 17, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rajamani et al. (US
2005/0251523 Al, published Nov. 10, 2005) (“Rajamani”), Elliott et al. (US
2008/0115134 Al, published May 15, 2008) (“Elliott”), and Driesen et al.
(US 7,523,142 B2, issued Apr. 21, 2009) (“Driesen”).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Rajamani, Elliott, Driesen, and Katz et al. (US
2002/0178077 Al, published Nov. 28, 2002) (“Katz”).
3
Appeal 2017-007244
Application 13/730,753
3. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Rajamani, Elliott, Driesen, and Eldridge et al.
(US 8,229,579 B2, issued July 24, 2012 (filed Nov. 5, 2008)) (“Eldridge”).
4. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Rajamani, Elliott, Driesen, and Vincent (US
2004/0015953 Al, published Jan. 22, 2004).
5. The Examiner rejects claims 15, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rajamani, Elliott, Driesen, Eldridge,
and Vincent.
ISSUE
Based upon Appellants’ contentions, the determinative issue before us
follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Rajamani,
Elliott, and Driesen would have collectively taught or suggested “generating
... a copy of a first portion of the first data-set on a temporary system . . .
arranged according to a temporary database schema . . . comprising a first
set of one or more aliases to access a second portion of the first data-set” and
“upgrading ... the first data-set to generate a second dataset associated with
an upgraded application . . . arranged according to the second database
structure of an upgrade database schema, the upgrade database schema
comprising a second set of one or more aliases to access a third portion of
the first data-set” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the
commensurate limitations of claims 10 and 17?
4
Appeal 2017-007244
Application 13/730,753
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejections
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (and independent claims 10
and 17) as being obvious in view of Rajamani, Elliott, and Driesen. See
Final Act. 2—6; Ans. 2—3. In particular, the Examiner relies on Driesen for
the teaching of aliases. Appellants contend that Rajamani, Elliott, and
Driesen do not teach the disputed features of claim 1. See App. Br. 10-13;
Reply Br. 7—10. Specifically, Appellants contend, inter alia:
Driesen discloses a single set of synonyms/aliases rather
than two different alias-sets (i.e., claimed first set of one or more
aliases and second set of one or more aliases) that are separately
stored according to two different database schema (i.e., claimed
temporary database schema and upgrade database schema,
respectively) to access different portions of data stored according
to a third database schema (i.e., claimed second and third
portions, respectively, of data stored according to original
database schema), as recited in claim 1. Therefore, Driesen fails
to disclose the claimed two different alias-sets that are separately
stored according to two different database schema to access
different portions of data stored according to a third database
schema, as recited in claim 1.
Reply Br. 10; see App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 8—9.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not sufficiently
explain how Driesen teaches or suggests two separate sets of aliases stored
according to two different schema for accessing different portions of a
dataset, as set forth in Appellants’ claim 1. The Examiner simply points to
portions of Driesen that describe synonyms/aliases and upgrading a database
(calculating DDLs for a destination release). See Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 2—3
(citing Driesen, col. 8,11. 3—7; col. 12,11. 15—20, 61—63; col. 13,11. 16—23;
col. 14,11. 12—14; Fig. 6D). The Examiner does not explain how the method
5
Appeal 2017-007244
Application 13/730,753
of Driesen might be incorporated into the methods of Rajamani and Elliott to
update/upgrade a database application such that two separate sets of aliases
stored according to two different schema for accessing different portions of
an original dataset, as required by Appellants’ claim 1. Thus, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the
combined teachings of Rajamani, Elliott, and Driesen meet the disputed
limitations of claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record to find that the
Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Rajamani, Elliott, and
Driesen renders obvious Appellants’ claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 17
include limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 3—6, 11, 12,
13, and 20 depend from and fall with claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Regarding the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2, 7—9, 14-
lb, 18, and 19, the Examiner has not established on this record that the
additionally cited Katz, Eldridge, and Vincent references overcome or cure
the aforementioned deficiencies of the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
the independent claims based on Rajamani, Elliott, and Driesen. Dependent
claims 2, 7—9, 14—16, 18, and 19 depend from claims 1, 10, and 17,
respectively. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 2, 7—9, 14—16, 18, and 19.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal 2017-007244
Application 13/730,753
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
7