Ex Parte Glass et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 9, 201712104738 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/104,738 04/17/2008 Richard A. Glass 063170.9045 4424 106095 7590 Baker Botts LLP 2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 EXAMINER CORTES, HOWARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/13/2017 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): PTOmaill @bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD A. GLASS and WAYNE A. DAUGHERTY Appeal 2016-007471 Application 12/104,7381 Technology Center 2100 Before LARRY J. HUME, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—22, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Computer Associates Think, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4. Appeal 2016-007471 Application 12/104,738 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed inventions are directed to a metadata driven user interface system and method. Spec. 1:9—10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject 1. A method, comprising: receiving a request for a webpage; retrieving metadata from a database, wherein the metadata comprise data describing tables, fields, foreign keys, and relationships of the database; translating the metadata into one or more webparts based on the data of the metadata describing tables, fields, foreign keys, and relationships of the database, wherein the one or more webparts are configured to receive alterations to the webpage; loading the one or more webparts onto the webpage; displaying the webpage; receiving alterations to the webpage via the one or more webparts, the alterations indicative of modifications to an entity class; translating the modifications of the entity class into instructions; and altering the metadata of the database based on the instructions. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: matter: REFERENCES Williamson et al. Paulus et al. LeClair Keck et al. US 2003/0212705 Al Nov. 13, 2003 US 2007/0282869 Al Dec. 6, 2007 US 2008/0052297 Al Feb. 28, 2008 US 7,702,648 B1 Apr. 20, 2010 2 Appeal 2016-007471 Application 12/104,738 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3—11, 13—17, and 19-22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paulus in view of Williamson and LeClair. Final Act. 3—16. Claims 2, 12, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paulus in view of Williamson, LeClair, and Keck. Final Act. 16—19. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 1—22, and, instead, we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—19), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 3—11). We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.2 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Williamson teaches “alterations indicative of modifications to an entity class,” as recited in the 2 Rather than reiterate the entirety of the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 30, 2015); the Reply Brief (mailed July 29, 2016); the Final Office Action (mailed June 2, 2015); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 31, 2016) for the respective details. 3 Appeal 2016-007471 Application 12/104,738 retrieving alterations step of claim 1. App. Br. 14—15; Reply Br. 2—3. According to Appellants, Williamson teaches receiving “modifications to objects or instances of classes (i.e., objects)” and then propagating them “through entity models to a database.” App. Br. 14. Appellants assert “receiving modifications to objects or instances of classes does not describe receiving alterations indicative of modifications to an entity class, as described in Claim 1.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellants further argue “merely propagating modifications of object data to a database using an entity model, as described in Williamson, does not describe translating modifications to an entity class into instructions, as described in Claim 1.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relies on the combination of Paulus and Williamson to teaching the receiving alterations step recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6—8; Ans. 3—6. Because Appellants arguments are directed to Williamson alone and not the combination of teachings relied on by the Examiner, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. 4 Appeal 2016-007471 Application 12/104,738 Furthermore, the Examiner finds the object classes taught by Williamson are entity classes. See Final Act. 19 (mapping object class to entity class); Ans. 3. Although Appellants contend the object class taught in Williamson is not an entity class as recited in claim 1, Appellants do not provide any basis for this argument. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). For this additional reason, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Appellants also argue because “Williamson is silent on any modification of classes for modifying database metadata, . . . Williamson does not disclose or suggest receiving modifications to an entity class as set forth in Claim 1.” App. Br. 14—15. Because the Examiner finds LeClair, and not Williamson, teaches the “altering the metadata” step recited in claim 1, we are not persuaded by Appellants arguing the references individually. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097 Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Williamson teaches the “translating the modifications” step recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15—16. Specifically, Appellants argue "modifying properties of an object and synchronizing those modifications to a DBMS, as described in Williamson, does not disclose or suggest translating modifications of an entity class into instructions, as set forth in Claim 1.” App. Br. 16. Appellants’ argument is premised on their earlier argument regarding the difference between an object class and an entity class, which we already found unpersuasive. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, 5 Appeal 2016-007471 Application 12/104,738 we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in finding Williamson teaches the “translating the modifications” step recited in claim 1. Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding LeClair teaches “altering metadata of the database based on the instructions,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 16. Specifically, Appellants argue that, although LeClair teaches altering metadata of the database, the alterations are not “based on instructions translated from modifications of an entity class, as described in Claim 1.” Id. The Examiner find Williamson teaches the translating step recited in claim 1, which generates the instructions used in the altering step. Final Act. 8—9. The Examiner further finds LeClair teaches altering metadata based on instructions and concludes “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Paulus and Williamson to update the database schema (metadata) when editing values of records as disclosed by LeClair.” Final Act. 9; Ans. 9 (“It follows that the combination of Paulus, Williamson and LeClair disclose ‘altering the metadata of the database based on the instructions’.”). Because the Examiner relies on the teachings of a combination of references and Appellants’ arguments are directed to a single reference, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Finally, Appellants argue the reason given for combining the references “overlooks the claimed alterations indicative of modifications to an entity class, as set forth in Claim 1.” App. Br. 17. Specifically, Appellants argue because “[n]o reference accounts for modification of an 6 Appeal 2016-007471 Application 12/104,738 entity class in order to modify database schema,... the Office Action does not contain any rationale explaining why this feature would be obvious.” Id. Appellants argument is dependent on their earlier argument that the prior art does not teach or suggest an entity class. Because we previously found the Examiner did not err in finding Williamson teaches an entity class, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the rationale found by the Examiner was insufficient. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding the reason to combine the references. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiners’ rejection of claim 1, and the rejections of claims 11 and 17, which are argued on the same grounds, and dependent claims 3—10, 13—16, and 19-22, which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 17—18. With respect to dependent claims 2, 12, and 18, Appellants merely contend that, because Keck does not cure the shortcomings of the other references applied against the independent claims, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 18. Because we determine the rejection of the independent claims is not erroneous for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of these claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—22. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation