Ex Parte George et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2013

11378585 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte MARK A. GEORGE and CYNTHIA L. STURGEON1
________________

Appeal 2011-003776
Application 11/378,585
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 BMC Software, Inc., is the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2011-003776
Application 11/378,585

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 36, 37, and 44 – 73. Claims 1 – 35 and 38 – 43 are
canceled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants invented a method for importing data in a network-based
customer relationship application. Data to be imported between an origin
and a destination is identified. Then, a set of predetermined rules associated
with the customer relationship application and at least one user-created
scripting function are identified. The destination is associated with the
customer relationship application, and the data is imported from the origin to
the destination utilizing the network in accordance with the predetermined
rules and is transformed based on the user-created scripting function. The
data is then stored in memory accessible to the customer relationship
application. See Spec., Abstract (amended Apr. 16, 2008).
Claim (Emphases Added)
36. A method for importing data from an origin to a destination
utilizing a network, the destination associated with a network-
based customer relationship application, the method
comprising:
identifying data to be imported from the origin to the
destination associated with the customer relationship
application utilizing the network;
identifying a set of predetermined rules associated with
the customer relationship application, the set of predetermined
Appeal 2011-003776
Application 11/378,585

3
rules relating to at least one requirement of the customer
relationship application;
identifying at least one user-created scripting function;
importing the data from the origin to the destination
utilizing the network in accordance with the set of
predetermined rules, wherein the act of importing includes
transforming the data from the origin to the destination based
on the at least one user-created scripting function; and
storing the imported data in memory at the destination
accessible to the customer relationship application.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 36, 37, and 44 – 73 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacLeod (US 6,356,901 B1; Mar. 12,
2002; filed Dec. 16, 1998) and Abrams (US 6,151,608; Nov. 21, 2000).
Ans. 3 – 12.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of MacLeod and
Abrams teaches or suggests: (1) “identifying a set of predetermined rules
associated with the customer relationship application, the set of
predetermined rules relating to at least one requirement of the customer
relationship application” and (2) “identifying at least one user-created
scripting function,” as recited in claim 36?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that “neither Macleod nor Abrams discloses or
describes importing/exporting data for a network-based customer
relationship application as explicitly claimed.” App. Br. 10. Appellants
argue that the predefined data migration rules “disclosed in Abrams are
Appeal 2011-003776
Application 11/378,585

4
based generically on principles of relational database design.” Id. at 11.
Appellants contend that “[a]t no point does Abrams appear to teach or
describe that a set of predetermined rules are associated with a customer
relationship application, nor that the predetermined rules relate to at least
one requirement of the customer relationship application as recited in the
rejected independent claims.” Id. In other words, Appellants argue that the
predefined data migration rules of Abrams are not associated with, and do
not relate to a requirement of, a customer relationship application.
In response to Appellants’ contention, the Examiner correctly points
out that the limitation of a “customer relationship application” is not clearly
defined in the Specification. See Ans. 14. We agree with the Examiner
because the Specification broadly discloses a customer relation application
as including “any type of application used to perform any customer-related
task.” Spec. 9, ll. 20 – 21 (emphases added). Examples given include “a
service desk application, a customer contact, application, etc.” Id. at 9, ll. 22
– 23. Abrams’ purchasing order entry system not only relates to a customer
relationship (the relationship of the purchaser with the supplier), but is used
to perform a customer-related task (consolidation of purchase orders into a
single purchase order to send to a supplier). See Abrams, col. 17, ll. 55 – 57.
Appellants do not persuasively distinguish between the purchase order entry
system of Abrams and the claimed customer relationship application. See,
e.g., Reply Br. 5. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that a reasonably
broad interpretation, in light of the Specification, of a “customer relationship
application” includes a purchasing order entry system, such as the one that
Abrams teaches. See Ans. 14 (citing Abrams, col. 17, ll. 55 – col. 18, l. 6).
Appeal 2011-003776
Application 11/378,585

5
Appellants further contend that the newly cited “passage of Abrams
merely describes a set of mathematical operations performed on a set of
original data to get a new set of data, regardless where the original set of
data come[s] from.” Reply Br. 5. However, the cited teachings regarding a
purchase order entry system illustrate an example of the use of the Abrams’
invention to consolidate or combine information from different sources into
a single set or tables. See Abrams, col. 17, ll. 44 – 45. Abrams’ disclosed
consolidation process “involves a migration of data from a source to a
destination [and] adds the functionality of being able to update or add to
existing destination records.” Id. at col. 17, ll. 46 – 49. In other words,
Abrams illustrates that the migration process of Abrams, which forms the
basis of the disclosed consolidation process, can be used to consolidate data
in (i.e., import data to) a purchase order entry system—a customer
relationship application. We agree with the Examiner that this teaches or
suggests the use of predetermined migration rules that are associated with
and relate to at least one requirement of the purchase order entry system.
See Ans. 4 (citing Abrams, col. 6, ll. 1 – 15 and col. 15, ll. 25 – 32).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner, Ans. 4, that the combination
of MacLeod and Abrams teaches or suggests identifying a set of
predetermined rules (migration rules) that are associated with a customer
relationship application (purchase order entry system), the set of
predetermined rules relation to at least one requirement of the customer
relationship application, as recited in claim 36.
Appellants further argue that MacLeod does not teach or suggest
“identifying at least one user-created scripting function,” as recited in claim
36. See Reply Br. 5 – 6. Appellants’ argument is both untimely, see Ex
Appeal 2011-003776
Application 11/378,585

6
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative decision),
and unpersuasive. Specifically, Appellants do not provide persuasive
arguments or evidence distinguishing between MacLeod’s use of
“conventional language scripts [that allow] specification of complex data
transformations . . . with a minimum of technical knowledge,” MacLeod,
col. 3, ll. 8 – 11, and the claimed identification of a user-created scripting
function, which relates to the Specification’s disclosure that “data is
transformed based on user-created scripting functions,” see Spec. 11, ll. 17 –
18. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner, Ans. 4, that MacLeod teaches
or suggests “identifying at least one user-created scripting function,” as
recited in claim 36.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 36, and claims 37 and 44 – 73, which are not argued separately.
See App. Br. 11.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 36, 37, and 44 – 73.
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).

AFFIRMED

msc