Ex Parte Heidasch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13288730 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

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.
13/288,730 11/03/2011 Robert Heidasch 2058.638US1 5158
50400 7590 02/02/2017
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
LO, ANN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT HEIDASCH, STEFAN SCHEIDL,
MICHAEL NEUMANN, MATTHIAS KAISER, STEPHAN BRAND,
NICO LICHT, KLAUS REICHENBERGER, ARCHIM HEIMANN,
CHRISTOPH MEINEL, and STEFFEN MOLDANER
Appeal 2016-002942
Application 13/288,730
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 22. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-002942
Application 13/288,730
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for use in searching for data
in business objects which takes into account the semantic meaning of words
in the business object. See Spec, paras. 2-\. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
retrieving data definitions defining types of business
objects stored in enterprise data, the data definitions defining the
types of business objects by specifying one or more attributes for
each of the types of business objects;
generating, based at least in part on the data definitions
defining the types of business objects stored in the enterprise
data, a meta-model of the enterprise data, the meta-model
providing semantic information regarding the one or more
attributes specified by the data definitions of the types of
business objects;
using the meta-model of the enterprise data to generate a
rule definition that maps the enterprise data to a semantic object
definition and a semantic relation definition;
using the rule definition to generate a semantic object and
a semantic relation from the business objects stored in the
enterprise data; and
storing the semantic object and the semantic relation in a
meta-model semantic network, the meta-model semantic
network associating a term to at least one of the semantic objects.
2
Appeal 2016-002942
Application 13/288,730
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6, 8 through 13,15
through 19, 21, and 221 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Phillips
(US 2012/0110016 Al, published May 3, 2012). Final Action 3-11.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 7, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Phillips and Latzina (US 2008/0319947 Al,
published Dec. 25, 2008). Final Action 12—13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We agree with Appellants’
conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, and
15.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8,
and 15 is in error as Phillips does not teach the claimed data definitions
defining the types of business objects. App. Br. 11—13 and Reply Br 2—6.
Further, Appellants argue that Phillips does not teach the data definitions are
used in generating a meta-model providing semantic information, and that
1 We note the Examiner’s statements of the rejection identify claim 7 as
rejected as under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103, and do not
identify a rejection of claims 8, 21, and 22. We consider this to be a typo as
the discussion of the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection identifies the limitations of
claims 8, 21, and 22 as taught by Phillips.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 29, 2015,
Reply Brief filed January 25, 2016, Final Action mailed September 5, 2014,
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on November 23, 2015.
3
Appeal 2016-002942
Application 13/288,730
the meta-model is used to generate a rule definition that maps data as
claimed. App. Br. 13—15 and Reply Br 5—9.
The Examiner finds that Phillips teaches these limitations, equating
Phillips’s “individuals” with the claimed “business objects” and Phillips’s
“property associations” with the claimed “attributes.” Answer 3—5 (citing
Phillips paras. 36, 83 and 85). Further, the Examiner cites to Phillips’s
discussion of an ontology including axioms as teaching the claimed meta­
model providing semantic information. Answer 5—6 (citing Phillips para.
36).
We have reviewed the evidence cited by the Examiner in the Answer
and the Final Action. Each of the independent claims 1,8, and 15 recites
limitations directed to data definitions defining the types of business objects,
the data definitions being used in generating a meta-model providing
semantic information, and that the meta-model is used to generate a rule
definition that maps data. We disagree with the Examiner’s findings that
Phillips teaches these disputed limitations. As argued by Appellants, the
cited paragraph of Phillips teaches that the “property associations” relate
“individuals” (which the Examiner equates to business objects) and do not
define types of business objects. Reply Br. 4—5. Further, while Phillips
discusses an ontology including axioms, where the axioms provide
semantics to allow inference of additional information, the Examiner has not
shown how this teaching meets the claimed meta-model, which is used to
generate a rule definition map. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 15, and the
claims dependent thereupon.
4
Appeal 2016-002942
Application 13/288,730
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7, 14, and 20 relies
upon Phillips to teach the limitations of the independent claims. The
Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of Latzina make up for
the deficiencies in the anticipation rejection. Accordingly, we similarly do
not sustain the Examiners’ obviousness rejections.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 22 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5