Ex Parte Hobbs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2016

13329778 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/329,778 12/19/2011
50400 7590 11/17/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Godfrey Hobbs
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.
2058.650US 1 1123
EXAMINER
BURKE, JEFF A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2016 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):
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 GODFREY HOBBS
Appeal2015-005137
Application 13/329,778 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, HUNG H. BUI, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-20, which are all claims
pending on appeal. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Business Objects
Software Limited. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed November 18, 2014
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed April 6, 2015 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed February 5, 2015 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed
March 25, 2014 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed December
19, 2011 ("Spec.").
Appeal2015-005137
Application 13/329,778
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Conventional report generation applications (i.e., software) allow a
user to design and generate reports from a wide range of data sources. Spec.
i-f 2. However, semantic errors often occur when referencing data stored at
data sources. Spec. i-f 3. As such, Appellant's invention seeks to provide a
notification (e.g., a graphical representation or a digital watermark) to a user,
when there is a mismatch associated with data stored at the data source and
possibly a semantic error with displayed data. Spec. i-f 18, 24; Abstract.
Claims 1, 10, and 15 are independent. Claim 10 is illustrative of
Appellant's invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics:
10. A non-transitory, machine-readable medium that stores
instructions, which, when performed by a machine, cause the
machine to perform operations comprising:
accessing a report that references data stored in a data
source separate from the report;
reading, from the report, a profile of metadata associated
with referencing the data source, the metadata comprising a
description of a structure of the data source;
comparing the profile of metadata and a current structure
of the data source;
detecting a mismatch between the profile of metadata and
the current structure of the data source based on the comparison;
and
adding a notification to a rendering of the report, the
notification informing the mismatch associated with the
referenced data.
App. Br. 22 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added).
2
Appeal2015-005137
Application 13/329,778
E'xaminer;s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lowrance et al. (US 7,809,700 B2, issued Oct. 5, 2010)
and Sinha (US 2010/0119288 Al, published May 19, 2011). Ans. 2-8.
(2) Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lowrance, Sinha, and Rinker (US 8,086,635 Bl, issued
Dec. 27, 2011). Ans. 9-13.
ANALYSIS
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 10-20 based on Lowrance and Sinha
In support of the rejection of claim 10, the Examiner finds Lowrance
teaches Appellant's claimed "non-transitory, machine-readable medium"
that stores instructions, which, when performed by a machine, cause the
machine to perform operations comprising:
accessing a report that references data stored in a data source
separate from the report [see Lowrance 3:52-55];
reading, from the report, a profile of metadata associated with
referencing the data source [see Lowrance 3:58-59]; [and]
adding a notification to a rendering of the report, the notification
informing the mismatch associated with the referenced data [see
Lowrance 4:31-35].
Final Act. 2-3, 5---6 (citing Lowrance 3:52-55, 3:58-59, 4:31-35).
The Examiner acknowledges Lowrance does not explicitly teach ( 1)
the particular of "metadata," i.e., "the metadata comprising a description of a
structure of the data source", and (2) the well-known concept of mismatch
detection of database states, i.e., (i) "comparing the profile of metadata and a
3
Appeal2015-005137
Application 13/329,778
current structure of the data source" and (ii) "detecting a mismatch between
the profile of metadata and the current structure of the data source based on
the comparison" as evidenced from Sinha in order to support the conclusion
of obviousness. Id. at 3--4 (citing Sinha i-fi-18, 33, 35, 37).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Lowrance. Nor does Appellant challenge the Examiner's rationale for
combining Lowrance and Sinha. Instead, Appellant only disputes the
Examiner's factual findings regarding Sinha. In particular, Appellant
acknowledges Sinha teaches: (1) "a comparison of a first database state to a
second database state" (App. Br. 12 (citing Sinha i133)); and (2) detecting
"database schema changes by comparing database states and then add[ing]
the database changes to a report" (Reply Br. 6). However, Appellant
contends Sinha's "database state" refers to "actual contents of the database
(e.g., the data stored in the database; see, for example, wikipedia.org)" and is
not and cannot be equated as Appellant's claimed "metadata" or "profile of
data" that is "data about data." App. Br. 12-13. In particular, Appellant
argues the term "profile of data" as recited in claim 1 cannot be broadly
interpreted to encompass Sinha's "database state." Id. at 13. As such,
Appellant argues:
Sinha does not disclose or suggest "comparing the profile of
metadata (read from the report and comprising a description of
a structure of the data source) and a current structure of the data
source" and does not disclose "detecting a mismatch between the
profile of metadata and the current structure of the data source
based on the comparison" ...
Thus, Lowrance and Sinha, alone or in combination, do not
disclose or suggest "reading, from the report, a profile of
metadata associated with referencing the data source, the
4
Appeal2015-005137
Application 13/329,778
metadata comprising a description of a structure of the data
source; comparing the profile of metadata and a current structure
of the data source; detecting a mismatch between the profile of
metadata and the current structure of the data source based on the
comparison"
as recited in Appellant's claim 10. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. At the outset, we
note that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based on combinations of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). "[T]he test of obviousness is
what the combined teachings would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art." Id. at 425. Both Lowrance and Sinha disclose methods of
verifying or providing feedback regarding validity of data referenced in a
report. For example, Lowrance teaches a method of verifying the accuracy
of data included in a report. See Lowrance's Abstract. Sinha further teaches
a method of detecting and applying database schema changes to a report.
See Sinha i-f 1; Abstract. Contrary to Appellant's arguments, Lowrance (not
Sinha) is relied upon for disclosing Appellant's claimed "profile of
metadata" in the form of ingredient data that Lowrance describes as "any
data related to the generation of a report, such as, for example ... the query
the user ran to obtain or identify information contained in the report, the date
and time the query was run, the version level for the contents of any
databases accessed, a query statement that generated the report (for example,
a structured query language (SQL) statement), a format of the report, and
data comprising the report." See Lowrance 4:9--17.
We also note that claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. A cad. of Sci. Tech
5
Appeal2015-005137
Application 13/329,778
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2007). As recognized by Appellant, the term "profile" is defined
by Appellant's Specification as follows:
As used herein, a "profile" refers to a snapshot of the metadata.
Examples of metadata include names of database views, names
of database tables, names of spreadsheets, names of columns,
names of result objects such as measures and dimensions from a
semantic layer that overlies the data source, SQL statements, data
parameters, localized names for any of these data source
elements, and other metadata.
Spec. i-f 28 (emphasis added).
Based on Appellant's Specification, the term "profile of metadata"
can also be interpreted to encompass Sinha's "database schema" for several
reasons. First, Sinha describes "database schema" as "the strttcture of the
database, such as database table names, database column names, and other
items, such as indexes, fields, relationships, and any other items that may be
required to define how the data is stored in the database." Sinha i-fi-13, 22.
As such, Sinha's "database schema" can be considered as Appellant's
claimed "metadata" because Sinha's "database schema" is also data about
data stored in a database. Second, Sinha also describes detecting changes in
the "database schema" as a result of comparing "snapshots" of the database
states, and then applying database schema changes to a report. Sinha i-fi-126-
31, 33-34, 41. According to Sinha, the database states as described do not
refer to "actual contents of the database" as Appellant argue. App. Br. 13.
Instead, Sinha's database states refers to "snapshots" of the "database
6
Appeal2015-005137
Application 13/329,778
schema" that can be considered as Appellant's claimed "metadata." Sinha
i-fi-13, 22, 41. Lastly, Sinha further teaches the use of "metadata" in the
context of "metadata description of the data sources" as an alternative to
"the logical or physical descriptions used by the data source" so that
"common business terms [can be used] in place of [database] table and
column names." Sinha i172.
In light of Sinha's teachings, we find Sinha teaches the well-known
concept of mismatch detection of database states, i.e., (1) "comparing the
profile of metadata and a current structure of the data source" and (2)
"detecting a mismatch between the profile of metadata and the current
structure of the data source based on the comparison" as recited in
Appellant's claim 10.
In the reply, Appellant argues the distinction between (1) a data
source, (2) a structure of the data source, and (3) a description of a structure
of the data source, as recited in claim 10. Reply Br. 3. According to
Appellant, "the 'data source' is distinguishable from 'a structure of the data
source' and 'a structure of the data source' is distinguished from 'a
description of a structure of the data source."' Id. Appellant acknowledges
Sinha's "database schema" may be interpreted as the structure of the
database, but argues Sinha's "database schema" is not and cannot be
considered equivalent to a "description" of the schema or a "description" of
the structure. Id. at 5.
We note these argument are raised for the first time in the Reply Brief
without any showing of good cause. In the absence of a showing of good
cause by Appellants, these arguments are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (2011) (second sentence); In re Hyatt, 211F.3d1367,
7
Appeal2015-005137
Application 13/329,778
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to
the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834,
1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that arguments and evidence
not timely presented in the principal Brief, will not be considered when filed
in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the
argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 ( BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[p]roperly
interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument
that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good
cause.").
Nevertheless, we disagree with Appellant's characterization that
Sinha's "database schema" does not include any "description" of the schema
or any "description" of the structure. Reply Br. 7. As acknowledged by
Appellant, Sinha's "database schema" is the structure of the database. Reply
Br. 5. However, as correctly recognized by the Examiner, the structure of
the database as described by Sinha, as contained in the report, is also
"metadata" because it describes the database. Ans. 5 (citing Sinha i-f 33).
Thus, Sinha also discloses Appellant's claimed "metadata comprising a
description of the structure of the data source" as recited in claim 10. Id.
For example, Sinha describes:
[ t ]he database schema represents the structure of the database,
such as database table names, database column names, and other
items, such as indexes, fields, relationships, and any other items
that may be required to define how the data is stored in the
database.
Sinha i-f 3.
8
Appeal2015-005137
Application 13/329,778
According to Sinha, "changes may [also] include modifications of
table names, column names, additions or deletions of tables and columns,
and also modifications of data types for columns." Sinha i-f 43. Descriptions
of these table names and column names are also shown in TABLE 2. Sinha
i-f 44. Sinha's discussions of the "database schema" are consistent with
Appellant's own description of the "profile of metadata" as including, for
example, "names of database views, names of database tables, names of
spreadsheets, names of columns" as described in paragraph 28 of
Appellant's Specification.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not demonstrated the
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of independent claim 10, and similarly independent claim 15 based
on Lowrance and Sinha.
With respect to dependent claims 12, 14, 17, and 19, Appellant argues
neither Lowrance nor Sinha teaches or suggests the limitations: "wherein the
profile includes a referenced database table [or parameter], and wherein the
operation of comparing the profile comprises detecting that the referenced
database table has been dropped from the data source." App. Br. 16-17.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. As noted by the Examiner,
Lowrance teaches these limitations in the context of generating "ingredient
data" that Lowrance describes as "any data related to a report" including
"data being dropped from a report." Final Act. 4 (citing Lowrance 4:9--17);
Ans. 5 (citing Lowrance 6:9--17). Accordingly, we also sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 12, 14, 17, and 19.
With respect to dependent claim 16, Appellant argues neither
Lowrance nor Sinha discloses "[t]he metadata comprising a description of a
9
Appeal2015-005137
Application 13/329,778
structure of the data source" and, as such, fails to teach or suggest "reading,
from the report, a profile of metadata associated with referencing the data
source." App. Br. 19. We disagree for the reasons discussed relative to
Sinha' s disclosure of "metadata comprising a description of a structure of
the data source" and for additional reasons discussed by the Examiner on
page 6 of the Examiner's Answer.
With respect to the remaining dependent claims 11, 13, 16, 18, and
20, Appellant presents no separate patentability arguments. App. Br. 19-20.
For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 11, 13, 16, 18, and 20.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-9 based on Lowrance, Sinha, and Rinker
Claim 1 is similar to claim 10 and further recites "adding a digital
watermark to a rendering of the report." In support of the rejection of claim
1, the Examiner further relies on Rinker for teaching the addition of a
watermark to a report to support the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act.
10-11 (citing Rinker 18:27-31).
Appellant reiterates the same arguments presented against the
rejection of claim 10. App. Br. 14--15. For the same reasons discussed
relative to claim 10, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claim 1 and its dependent claims 4--9, which Appellant does not argue
separately.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 3, Appellant reiterates the
same arguments presented against the rejection of claims 12 and 14. App.
Br. 15-16. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3.
10
Appeal2015-005137
Application 13/329,778
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has not demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20.
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).
AFFIRMED
11