Ex Parte Falk et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 11, 2012

10844985 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 11, 2012)

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.
10/844,985 05/13/2004 Alexander Falk 109893.00002 7673
7590 04/12/2012
Kenneth F. Kozik
43 Mohawk Drive
Acton, MA 01720-2343
EXAMINER
RUTTEN, JAMES D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/12/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ALEXANDER FALK and VLADISLAV GAVRIELOV
____________________

Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-13 and 16-29. Claims 14 and 15 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary independent claims 1 and 12 under appeal, with emphases
added, read as follows:
1. A data integration method operative in a data
processing system having a windows-based graphical user
interface (GUI), comprising:
(a) displaying "n" structured data objects, wherein any
given structured data object is positionable in any juxtaposition
with respect to any other given structured data object, wherein
"n" is a positive integer;
(b) visually defining mappings between at least a first
structured data object and a second structured data object, each
mapping taking one or more data elements of the first
structured data object and associating the one or more data
elements, or an output from a data processing function thereof,
to one or more data elements in the second structured data
object: and
(c) responsive to step (b), automatically generating given
program code, wherein the given program code enables a
programmable data transformation of at least a first data
structure visually represented by the first structured data object
to at least a second data structure visually represented by the
second structured data object in a given application execution
environment;
Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985

3
wherein at least one data element is individually
addressable and mappable.
12. A structured data object for use in a data integration
display method, the structured data object comprising:
a structured content model representation;
a first set of one or more sockets representing one or
more inputs to the structured content model representation; and
a second set of one or more sockets representing one or
more outputs from the structured content model representation;
wherein the sockets facilitate creation of a given visual
mapping when the data object is displayed in juxtaposition with
one or more other data objects;
wherein at least one of the sockets communicates data;
and
wherein the structured content model representation is
visually representative, at least in part, of a data structure
encoded within a computer readable medium.
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Ans. 4-5.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-12, 16, 19, and 22-29 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Williams
(US 5,850,548) and Beisiegel (US 2004/0015515 A1). Ans. 5-9.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 13, 17, and 18 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Williams,
Beisiegel, further in view of Bahrs (US 6,292,933 B1) and Emmanuel
Pietriga, et al., VXT: A Visual Approach to XML Transformations, IN
Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985

4
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2001 ACM SYMPOSIUM ON DOCUMENT ENGINEERING,
pp. 1-10 (November, 2001) (hereinafter, “VXT”). Ans. 10-11.
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 20 and 21 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Williams, Beisiegel, and
Faustini (US 5,842,020). Ans. 11.

The Examiner’s Findings
(1) With respect to the first rejection supra, under § 101, the Examiner
determines that claims 12 and 13 are drawn to non-statutory subject matter
because the structured data object is not embodied in a computer-readable
media (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner determines that the recited structured
content model representation only represents a data structure, and therefore
the claimed structured data object is not required to be embodied in a
computer-readable medium (Ans. 12).
(2) With respect to all three of the obviousness rejections supra, the
Examiner determines that Williams discloses:
(a) displaying “n” structured data objects in Figures 4A-G and column
1, lines 60-62 (Ans. 5-6 and 13);
(b) structured data object mapping and visually defining mappings of
structured data objects in Figure 3B and column 5, lines 46-49 and column
6, lines 34-47 (Ans. 6, 13, and 15); and
(c) automatically generating a given program code that enables a
programmatic data transformation in a given application execution
environment at column 5, lines 33-41 (Ans. 6 and 14).
The Examiner also determines that Beisiegel (Figs. 1 and 6; ¶¶ [0004]
and [0049]) discloses visual data transformation of a first data structure to a
Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985

5
second data structure using graphical data objects (Ans. 6-7 and 14). The
Examiner concludes that the combination of Williams and Beisiegel teaches
or suggests element (c) of representative claim 1, e.g., automatically
generating given program code, wherein the given program code enables a
programmable data transformation of at least a first data structure visually
represented by the first structured data object to at least a second data
structure visually represented by the second structured data object in a given
application execution environment (Ans. 6-7 and 13-14).
(3) With respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 12 over
Williams and Beisiegel, supra, the Examiner determines that Williams
discloses:
(a) storing a data object in a computer-readable storage medium (107
in Fig. 1);
(b) a structured model representation (Fig. 4F); and
(c) ports that are equivalent to the recited sockets and can
communicate data (col. 2, ll. 23-25). Ans. 8.
(4) With respect to the obviousness rejection over Williams,
Beisiegel, and further in view of Bahrs and VXT, supra, the Examiner also
determines that (a) Bahrs discloses an XML database and EDI transactions,
and (b) VXT discloses DTD and web services (Ans. 10).
(5) With respect to the obviousness rejection over Williams,
Beisiegel, and further in view of Faustini, supra, the Examiner also
determines that (a) Williams (Fig. 4E) discloses display of a preview (Ans. 8
and 16), and (b) Faustini (col. 9, ll. 20-25) discloses a programming
environment using an interpreter (Ans. 11 and 16).
Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985

6
Appellants’ Contentions
(1) With respect to the first rejection supra, under § 101, Appellants
contend (App. Br. 11 and 20-23; Reply Br. 2-3) that claims 12 and 13 recite
a structured content model representation that visually represents a data
structure encoded within a computer readable medium, and therefore the
data structure is structurally and functionally related to the medium, and is
statutory. Appellants assert (Reply Br. 2) that the Examiner incorrectly
concludes that the structured data object as recited is not required to be
encoded within a computer readable medium.
(2) With respect to the second rejection supra, under § 103,
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-12, 16,
19, and 22-29 over Williams and Beisiegel for numerous reasons including:
(a) Williams fails to teach or suggest displaying “n” structured data
objects (App. Br. 23-24);
(b) Williams fails to teach or suggest visually defining mappings
(App. Br. 24-25);
(c) the Examiner has failed to identify any teaching, suggestion, or
implication in Williams of visually defining mappings between a first and
second structured data object (App. Br. 25);
(d) Williams and Beisiegel, whether taken separately or in
combination, fail teach or suggest automatically generating a given program
code (App. Br. 26-27); and
(e) “Beisiegel does not apply to Appellant’s method because Beisiegel
details data structure mappings while Appellant’s claims structured data
object mappings” (App. Br. 27).
Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985

7
(3) With respect to the third rejection supra, under § 103, Appellants
contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 13, 17, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Williams, Beisiegel, Bahrs, and VXT for
similar reasons as provided with regard to the second rejection, and also
contend that none of the cited references teach or suggest visually defining
mappings between first and second structured data objects that visually
represent data structures chosen from the group consisting of an XML
document, a database, an EDI source, a DTD, and a web service, as set forth
in claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 (App. Br. 27-28).
(4) With respect to the fourth rejection supra, under § 103, Appellants
contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Williams, Beisiegel, and Faustini because the
Examiner fails to point to any reference that teaches or suggests the
“preview” concept of the claims (App. Br. 28).1
Notably, Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s findings (3)(a)-(c)
above with respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 12, and group claim
12 with representative claim 1 (App. Br. 23-27).

ISSUES
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the following issues are presented
on appeal:
(1) Are claims 12 and 13 drawn to non-statutory subject matter?

1 Claim 21 depends from claim 20, and claim 20 recites “code for selectively
displaying a preview.”
Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985

8
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-13 and 16-29 as being
obvious because the combination of Williams and Beisiegel fails to teach or
suggest:
(a) displaying “n” structured data objects,
(b) visually defining mappings of structured data objects, and
(c) “automatically generating given program code, wherein the given
program code enables a programmable data transformation of at least a first
data structure visually represented by the first structured data object to at
least a second data structure visually represented by the second structured
data object in a given application execution environment;” as recited in
representative claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 9, 16, 25,
and 26?2

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 10-29) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 2-3) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions.
Claims 12 and 13: Non-Statutory Subject Matter
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to

2 Claim 12 does not include the limitation at issue in the other independent
claims, claims 1, 9, 16, 25, and 26. As noted supra, Appellants group claim
12 with representative claim 1 and do not dispute the Examiner’s findings
with regard to independent claim 12 (see App. Br. 23-27).
Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985

9
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 4-5 and 11-12). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and provide emphasis as follows.
The first step in determining whether a claim passes muster under
§ 101 is to determine if the claim is directed to one of the four patent-eligible
subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter. If the subject matter of the claim is not to one of the four patent-
eligible subject matter categories, then it should be rejected under § 101, for
at least this reason. Memorandum from Andrew H. Hirshfeld, Acting
Deputy Comm’r for the Patent Examination Policy, U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (to the Technology Center Directors), New Interim Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Instructions (August 24, 2009)
available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-
25_interim_101_instructions.pdf, pages 1-2.
Claims 12 and 13 are not drawn to statutory subject matter as claim 12
is limited to a structured data object that includes a structured content model
representation, which in turn is only partially visually representative of a
data structure that is encoded within a computer readable medium. The
structured data object recited in claims 12 and 13 does not fall within one of
the four statutory classes of patentable subject matter.
Because the data structure is not limited to being associated with the
structured data object or the structured content model representation (i.e., “a
data object” lacks antecedent basis linking it to either the structured data
object or the structured content model representation), the claimed structured
data object also imparts no functionality and is not embodied in a tangible
computer readable medium. See Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer
Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).
Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985

10
For at least the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s
§ 101 rejection of claims 12 and 13.
Claims 1, 4-12, 16, 19, and 22-29: Obviousness
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 5-7 and 13-16), with the exception that
Beisiegel (¶ [0004]), and not Williams, discloses automatically generating a
given program code that enables a programmatic data transformation in a
given application execution environment (see supra Examiner’s Finding
(2)(c); Ans. 6 citing Williams at col. 5, ll. 33-31).
Beisiegel discloses (Fig. 1) products to facilitate mapping by visually
displaying or rendering a first data structure 102 and a second data structure
104, and then “generat[ing] a script or source code 110” for compilation and
execution to perform mapping to enable effective and quick design
applications (¶ [0004], cited at Ans. 6 and 14). Thus, Beisiegel
“automatically generates given program code” that enables a programmable
data transformation of a first to a second data structure as recited in
representative claim 1. Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 26-27) that the
combination of Williams and Beisiegel fails to teach, suggest, or imply
automatically generating given program code are unpersuasive because we
find that Beisiegel discloses such a feature, even if Williams does not.3
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 13) that based on a broad, but
reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations found in claim 1, Williams

3 We note that Appellants admit (App. Br. 26) that Williams discloses
generating code.
Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985

11
teaches or suggests (i) visually displaying “n” structured objects (see Figs.
4A-G; col. 1, ll. 60-62); and (ii) mapping or structured data object mapping
(see Fig. 3B). However, as noted supra, we disagree with the Examiner
(Ans. 6) that Williams’ column 5, lines 33-41 teaches or suggests
“automatically generating given program code” that “enables a
programmatic data transformation . . . in a given application execution
environment” (claim 1), and find Beisiegel (see ¶ [0004]), previously cited
by the Examiner (Ans. 6 and 14), discloses this feature.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6-7 and 14) that Beisiegel (Figs. 1
and 6; ¶¶ [0004] and [0049]) discloses visual data transformation of a first
data structure to a second data structure using graphical data objects. We
also agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 5-6, 13, and 15) that Williams
discloses visually representing first and second data structures with first and
second structured data objects (Fig. 3B; Figs. 4A-G; col. 1, ll. 60-62; col. 5,
ll. 46-49; col. 6, ll. 34-47).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 6-7 and 13-14)
that the combination of Williams and Beisiegel teaches or suggests
“automatically generating given program code, wherein the given program
code enables a programmable data transformation of at least a first data
structure visually represented by the first structured data object to at least a
second data structure visually represented by the second structured data
object in a given application execution environment;” as recited in
representative claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 9, 16, 25,
and 26.
In view of the foregoing, we concur with the conclusions reached by
the Examiner with regard to the obviousness of representative claim 1 and
Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985

12
the remaining claims 4-12, 16, 19, and 22-29, all which are rejected under §
103(a) over the combination of Williams and Beisiegel.
Claims 2, 3, 13, 17, 18, 20, and 21: Obviousness
We also concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner (see
Ans. 10-11 and 15-16) with regard to the rejections of (1) claims 2, 3, 13,
17, and 18 under § 103(a) over the combination of Williams, Beisiegel,
Bahr, and VXT (see third rejection, supra), and (2) claims 20 and 21 under
§ 103(a) over the combination of Williams, Beisiegel, and Faustini (see
fourth rejection, supra). We agree with the Examiner that Bahrs discloses
an XML database and EDI transactions, VXT discloses a DTD and web
services, and Williams discloses a preview as shown in Figure 4E.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in determining that claims 12 and 13 are
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-13 and 16-29 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-13 and 16-29 are not patentable over the cited references.

DECISION
(1) The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 12 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter is affirmed.
(2) The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-13 and 16-29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2009-012172
Application 10/844,985

13

AFFIRMED

msc