Ex Parte Finke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2018

13305717 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 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.
13/305,717 11/28/2011 Thomas Finke 34874-792F01US 8228
64280 7590 01/12/2018
Mintz Levin/SAP
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
One Financial Center
EXAMINER
COOK, BRIAN S
Boston, MA 02111 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/12/2018 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 THOMAS FINKE, DANIEL BUCHMANN,
FLORIAN KRESSER, HANS-MARTIN LUDWIG,
and THOMAS MUELLER
Appeal 2017-005983
Application 13/305,7171
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to “modeling cross system content between a
hub and one or more backend systems.” Spec. Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-005983
Application 13/305,717
1. A method comprising:
storing model content of one or more data models in a
model stack defined in a first storage device, the model content
of each of the one or more data models comprising model
metadata representing a model of a corresponding backend
system;
storing cross model content in a cross model stack defined
in a second storage device, the cross model content comprising
reference metadata representing one or more references
associated with a data model of one backend system and that
reference a data model of another backend system, the second
storage device being different from the first storage device such
that the model content and the cross model content are stored
separately in different storage devices; and
storing central cross model content in a central cross
model stack, the central cross model content comprising one or
more cross elements that do not belong to the model content of
any of the one or more data models, and that establish a
connection between two data models of different backend
systems,
the cross model content using the central cross model
content to extend the model content of the backend system.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Megerian (US 5,768,532; June 16, 1998). Final Act. 13.
Claims 3, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Megerian and Maes (US 2011/0196824 Al; Aug.
11,2011). Final Act. 19.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Megerian discloses “the central cross
model content comprising one or more cross elements . . . that establish a
2
Appeal 2017-005983
Application 13/305,717
connection between two data models of different backend systems,” as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
(Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8)
Independent claims 1, 4, and 7 recite “the central cross model content
comprising one or more cross elements . . . that establish a connection
between two data models of different backend systems.”
The Examiner maps Megerian’s “hash algorithm 31” to the claimed
“data model” and Megerian’s “remote system information 34” to the
claimed “central cross model content.” Final Act. 6; Megerian Fig. 2. The
Examiner finds:
[T]he remote system information [34] has elements (e.g.,
controller, device, line, hardware info, remote system name, etc.)
.... These elements establish a connection between data models
(i.e. hash algorithm 31) because they provide (e.g., “remote
system name” and “line”) which are required in order to connect
between the remote system so that data 36 can properly be
distributed across the remote system according meta data (i.e.,
hash values: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) which references the reference
(SYSTEM 1, 2, 3). The hash values are linked to the Hash
Algorith[m] 31 because the Hash Algorithm generates the hash
value (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) illustrated in the partition data 32.
Ans. 24.
We agree with Appellants, however, that under the Examiner’s
mapping, “even if Megerian’s remote system information enables a
connection between two computer systems, Megerian’s remote system
information cannot anticipate the claimed central cross model content unless
Megerian’s remote system information enables a connection between the
hash algorithms.” App. Br. 18 (emphasis omitted). Thus, the claims require
3
Appeal 2017-005983
Application 13/305,717
establishing a connection between the data models (which the Examiner has
identified as the hash algorithm), not between the systems. The Examiner,
however, has only shown that the elements in Megerian’s remote system
information 34 are used to establish a connection between systems, not
between hash algorithms. Using a hash algorithm to establish a connection
between systems is not the same as establishing a connection between hash
algorithms.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 4, and 7, and their dependent claims 2, 5, and 8.
Obviousness
(Claims 3, 6, and 9)
Dependent claims 3, 6, and 9 depend from independent claims 1, 4,
and 7. The Examiner makes no findings or conclusions that the deficiency
discussed above is rendered obvious by Megerian or Maes.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 3, 6, and 9 for the same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—9.
REVERSED
4