Ex Parte GU et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201612544224 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/544,224 08/20/2009 62730 7590 08/31/2016 SAP SE 3410 HILL VIEW A VENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94304 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR WEN GU 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2008P004 l 8US 8913 EXAMINER YOUNG, ASHLEY YA-SHEH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2016 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): APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM GIPinhouse@sap.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WEN GU, BIN FU, SERGIO LENCINAS, and JESUS LOPEZ MIJAN Appeal2014-005388 Application 12/544,224 Technology Center 3600 Before: ANNETTE R. REIMERS, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-005388 Application 12/544,224 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method and system for creating an instance of an adaptable business object. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. An article of manufacture, comprising: a non- transitory machine-accessible medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising: analyzing a received user selection of a scenario specific action node from a computer generated user interface, to determine a scenario specific action node identifier and to perform a business scenario; based upon the scenario specific action node identifier of the scenario specific action node, a processor of the computer identifying an associated adaptable business object for the business scenario associated with the scenario specific action node; determining a dimension code of a received dimension version associated with the adaptable business object; to retrieve from a database, metadata associated with the received dimension version; determining a business logic associated with the adaptable business object to compile the metadata and the adaptable business object and to generate the instance of the adaptable business object associated with the received dimension version. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Li Fiedler US 2004/020494 7 A 1 Oct. 14, 2004 US 2007/0250481 Al Oct. 25, 2007 2 Appeal2014-005388 Application 12/544,224 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14--17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Li. Claims 6-7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li and Fiedler. OPINION Claims 1-1 7 are pending; claims 1, 11, and 1 7 are independent. Appellants argue claims 1- 5, 8-10 as a group. Br. 10-15. 1 We select claim 1 as representative. Appellants argue that Li does not anticipate claim 1 because when Li carries out a business process, it begins with "modification" to "master data". Br. 12, 13. "Neither the 'metadata' in the database nor the 'adaptable business object' of Independent Claim 1 is modified in any manner, thus preserving the metadata and the adaptable business object intact." Id. at 14 (emphasis in original). "Li does not teach or suggest a method of 'generation an instance of the adaptable business object' without making changes to an associated master data." Id. (emphasis in original). This argument is not persuasive because Appellants do not point to any specific language in claim 1 not met by Li. See Ans. 10-11 ("[M]any of the arguments and examples posed by the Applicant [sic] are not explicitly 1 Appellants did not file a Reply Brief 3 Appeal2014-005388 Application 12/544,224 claimed in the filed claim set .... "). There is no limitation in Li that precludes making changes to the master data. Moreover, the alleged "modification" to master data is nothing more than entry of data concerning the particular employee who is the subject of the business process. As Li describes it, the process begins by "performing some changes to the master data of employee 300 (process 21 O)." Li i-f 32 (emphasis added), see also Li i-f 36. The disclosure of Li involves not merely compiling an instance of a business scenario based on a generic business scenario and localization requirements, but actually running the program with individualized data to arrive at an individualized response. The subject matter of claim 1 deals only with compiling an instance of an adaptable business object applicable to a given business situation, but does not describe the steps that involve the input of particularized data relating to a given business situation. There may be differences between the disclosure of Appellants and Li, some of which Appellants have pointed out, but we are not persuaded that there are any differences between the subject matter of claim 1 and the disclosure of Li as explained by the Examiner in the Final Action. Appellants argue claims 11-12 and 14-16 as a group, stating that they have limitations like claim 1. Br. 15. They argue these claims are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. Id. In as much as we are not persuaded of Examiner error in connection with claim 1, we are likewise not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11-12 and 14-16. Appellants argue claim 17 separately, stating it has limitations like claim 1 and is patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. Br. 15. In as 4 Appeal2014-005388 Application 12/544,224 much as are not persuaded of Examiner error in connection with claim 1, we are likewise not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 7. Appellants argue claims 6-7, which are dependent on claim 1, are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1 and that Fiedler does not cure the deficiencies of Li. Br. 16. Since we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in relying on Li, we are not persuaded that claims 6-7 have been erroneously rejected. Appellants argue claim 13, which is dependent on claim 11, is patentable for the same reasons as claim 1 and that Fiedler does not cure the deficiencies of Li. Br. 16. Since we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in relying on Li, we are not persuaded that claims 13 has been erroneously rejected. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17 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)(l )(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation