Ex Parte Hoffmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2019

14056491 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/056,491 10/17/2013
50400 7590 01/30/2019
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Martin Hoffmann
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.
2058.899US 1 4886
EXAMINER
AL HASHEM!, SANA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2019 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 MARTIN HOFFMANN, MARTIN ERDELMEIER and STEFAN
LINKERSDOERFER
Appeal2018-003862
Application 14/056,491
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NABEEL U. KHAN and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 7-12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
[W]hen a software vendor or developer creates a software system
that may be of interest to many different types of clients,
businesses, or industries, each different client or industry more
than likely has data that are stored in different database structures
and different data formats within those structures. The software
vendor has to be aware of these differences among clients and
industries, and has to account for these differences in some way.
In an embodiment, one way of accounting for these differences
Appeal2018-003862
Application 14/056,491
among industries or clients is to develop a generic solution that
can be used by all of the different clients and industries. The
generic solution is then aware of, and accounts for, the different
data structures and formats of the different clients and industries.
Specification, paragraph 13.
Illustrative Claim
1. A system comprising:
a computer processor operable to:
receive a plurality of database tables from a
plurality of different, independent third-party clients in
different industries, wherein each of the database tables
comprises a database model;
store the database tables in a computer storage
device of a software vendor who services the plurality of
clients using the plurality of database tables and who
maintains the database tables in the computer storage
device for the plurality of clients, such that the database
tables of the plurality of clients are replicated into the
computer storage device of the software vendor;
create a plurality of views for the database tables,
the plurality of views each comprising a plurality of
fields;
associate the plurality of views with a generic
application of the software vendor, wherein the generic
application is used by the plurality of clients, and
wherein each of the plurality of views serves as a
connection between the generic application of the
software vendor and a particular database model of a
particular client;
present to a user one or more configuration
options, the configuration options comprising the
plurality of fields;
define a generic field role for one or more of the
plurality of fields; and
execute the generic application using the
configuration options selected by the user and the defined
2
Appeal2018-003862
Application 14/056,491
generic field roles to create a user interface for the
particular client.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
being anticipated by Gardner (US Patent 6,058,391; issued May 2, 2000).
Final Action 2-5.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Gardner and O 'Malley (US Patent Application
Publication 2012/0296692 Al; published November 22, 2012).
Final Action 5-6.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's
findings, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 19, 2017), the Reply Brief
(filed February 27, 2018), the Answer (mailed January 3, 2018) and the
Final Action (mailed February 9, 2017) for the respective details.
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
The Examiner finds Gardner teaches:
[Receiving] a plurality of database tables from a plurality of
different, independent third party clients in different industries
(Fig. 6B. wherein the different department corresponds to
different industries. Gardner).
Final Action 2.
[T]he method of creating different views viewed by different
departments corresponds to different industries and wherein the
3
Appeal2018-003862
Application 14/056,491
administrator corresponds to the third party since the
administrator is the creator and the viewer of all views and which
is a customization of a software and the users such as department
and/or employee are different users Col. 7, lines 4-15, Fig. 1,
and Col. 7, lines 29-44.
Answer 4.
Appellants argue the Examiner's assertion that Gardner's disclosure
of different departments corresponds to the different industries recited in
claim 1 is not consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the
terminology employed in claim 1. Appeal Brief 8 ( citing Final Action 2).
Appellants contend:
Gardner makes it clear that the tables in FIGS. 6A and 6B come
from the same company. Specifically, FIGS. 6A-6B "illustrate
the Employee Salary View 602 and the Department/Budget
View 604 as defined in the view database depicted in FIGS.
5A-5D." (Gardner, col. 11, 11. 10-12) The views in the series of
FIG. 5A-5D are from a single company database (Gardner, col.
10, 1. 7.).
Appeal Brief 9.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We find Appellants' arguments persuasive of
Examiner error. Gardner does not teach receiving a plurality of databases
tables from different third party clients from different industries as recited in
independent claims 1, 9 and 16. Gardner teaches receiving a plurality of
database tables from clients within the same company. Although the
Examiner finds that the term industry can be used to refer to different
4
Appeal2018-003862
Application 14/056,491
departments of a company, the Examiner does not find that this is true for
the departments disclosed in Gardner. See Answer 3--4 ( citing a dictionary
definition to show that "industries could be departments or branches of a
company"). We are constrained by the record and accordingly, we reverse
the anticipation rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-20. Subsequently, we reverse
the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 8 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-20 is
reversed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 8 is reversed.
REVERSED
5