Ex Parte Le Biannic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

12580787 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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.
12/580,787 10/16/2009 Yann Le Biannic 2009P00226US mi
52025 7590 09/28/2017
SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
ALMANI, MOHSEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
martin @ BMTPATENT.COM
szpara@bmtpatent.com
colabella@bmtpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YANN LE BIANNIC, JOHN O’BYRNE, and
JUAN FRANCISCO CALVENTE
Appeal 2015-002335
Application 12/580,787
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—27, which
are all the claims pending in the application.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify the assignee of the application on appeal as Business
Objects Software Limited, and identify the real party in interest as SAP AG.
App. Br. 2.
2 An amendment filed after the Final Action proposing to add new claims
was not entered. Advisory Action (mailed Feb. 26, 2014).
Appeal 2015-002335
Application 12/580,787
We affirm.
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to providing interoperability
between Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) clients and Business
Intelligence (BI) clients. See Spec. 3:25. Rather than use only an OLAP
client to access a particular dataset, see Spec. 2,11. 3—25, Fig. 1, and only a
BI client to access a particular database of business data, see Spec. 2:26—
3:17, metadata may be used to allow a user to, for example, “create a query
state within an OLAP client and to use the query state within a BI
document,” Spec. 3:25—27; see also id. at 5:3—10, Fig. 3. Claims 1, 8, and
15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed
subject matter.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an instruction to initialize a data provider
associated with an analysis cube and a dataset;
in response to the instruction, acquiring first metadata
associated with the analysis cube and generating, based on the
first metadata, second metadata of an abstraction layer
comprising a plurality of objects;
receiving a query comprising a first plurality of objects of
the abstraction layer;
transforming the query to a query state specifying a
navigation status based on the second metadata of the abstraction
layer; and
acquiring a result set from the dataset by using the
navigation status of the query state in conjunction with the
analysis cube;
wherein the generating, based on the first metadata,
second metadata of an abstraction layer comprising a plurality of
objects comprises:
2
Appeal 2015-002335
Application 12/580,787
generating the second metadata based on the first
metadata using a mapping between concept types used in
acquiring data from an OLAP data source and object types
used in acquiring data from a non OLAP data source.
Rejection
I. Claims 1—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Cras et al. (US 2002/0091681 Al, published July 11, 2002)
(“Cras”). Final Act. 8-31.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding that paragraphs 70 and
88 of Cras disclose the following limitations of claim 1 (“the ‘wherein’
limitations”):
wherein the generating, based on the first metadata,
second metadata of an abstraction layer comprising a plurality of
objects comprises:
generating the second metadata based on the first
metadata using a mapping between concept types used in
acquiring data from an OLAP data source and object types
used in acquiring data from a non OLAP data source.
App. Br. 6—20. In particular, Appellants disagree with the Examiner’s
findings regarding these limitations that the term “universe” used in Cras is a
semantic layer between the user and both types of databases, i.e., OLAP and
non OLAP. App. Br. 11—17; see Final Act. 10. Appellants acknowledge
that Cras discloses an OLAP database and a non OLAP database, such as a
relational database. Id. at 11—12. Appellants point out, however, that in
Figure 2 of Cras, a “universe” is only depicted with relational data source
214, which is consistent with paragraphs 104 and 105 of Cras. Id. at 12.
Thus, Appellants conclude, Cras’ paragraph 70, which provides that “[t]he
3
Appeal 2015-002335
Application 12/580,787
universe is a semantic layer between the user and the database,” refers only
to the universe associated with the relational database, and not to the OLAP
database. App. Br. 14.
The Examiner finds “[t]he fact that the Universe metadata is used for
mapping to relational databases is not [in] contrast with the fact that
metadata objects are used for extracting data from both databases.” Ans. 6.
The Examiner, therefore, agrees with Appellants’ arguments as to the term
“Universe,” but explains that Cras’ “metadata objects define both type[s] of
data sources through a Universe metadata which is used for extracting data
from relational database and OLAP metadata which is used for extracting
data from multidimensional/OLAP database.” Ans. 5—6. The Examiner
finds the “metadata objects” referred to in Cras’ paragraph 88 are the
“second metadata” recited in claim 1. Ans. 5.
Appellants emphasize the Examiner’s agreement as to Cras’ use of the
term “universe,” but do not challenge the Examiner’s findings that Cras’
metadata objects nonetheless provide access to both types of data sources
and, therefore, teach the “wherein” limitations. See Reply Br. 2—15.
Appellants contend in the Reply Brief, however, that Cras does not disclose
the following limitations of claim 1 (the “‘in response to’ limitations”):
in response to the instruction [to initialize a data provider],
acquiring first metadata associated with the analysis cube and
generating, based on the first metadata, second metadata of an
abstraction layer comprising a plurality of objects.
Reply Br. 16—27. Appellants contend that the second metadata cannot be
generated “in response to” Cras’ instruction to initialize a data provider
because these metadata objects already exist at the time the instruction is
provided. Reply Br. 19-20.
4
Appeal 2015-002335
Application 12/580,787
“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the
appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s
answer . . ., will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present
appeal, unless good cause is shown.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). As discussed
further below, Appellants have not shown that (1) the Appeal Brief argues
that Cras fails to disclose the “in response to” limitations, (2) the argument is
responsive to positions raised for the first time in the Examiner’s Answer, or
(3) good cause exists to present the argument for the first time in the Reply
Brief. Accordingly, we consider Appellants’ arguments as to the “in
response to” limitations waived under our Rules.
Although the Appeal Brief quotes claim 1, the Final Office Action,
and the Cras reference, see, e.g., App. Br. 6—10, we do not perceive any
argument in the Appeal Brief that Cras fails to disclose the “in response to”
limitations of claim 1. Instead, as discussed above, the Appeal Brief
arguments regarding claim 1 assert that Cras does not disclose the “wherein”
limitations because the Examiner misunderstands Cras’ use of the term
“universe.”
Appellants’ arguments as to the “in response to” limitations are also
not responsive to positions expressed by the Examiner for the first time in
the Answer. The “in response to” limitations and the “wherein” limitations
both relate to the “first metadata” and “second metadata” recited in claim 1,
but the limitations are distinct. Moreover, contrary to Appellants’
suggestion that the Examiner identifies the “metadata objects” in Cras’
paragraph 88 as the “second metadata” recited in claim 1 for the first time in
the Answer, Reply Br. 15—16, the Final Action presents this finding also,
Final Act. 9. A comparison of the Examiner’s Final Action and the Answer
5
Appeal 2015-002335
Application 12/580,787
shows that the Examiner has not changed positions as to what constitutes the
first and second metadata recited in claim 1, compare Final Act. 8—9 with
Ans. 5. The Examiner’s withdrawing reliance on the term “universe” to
show that the second metadata is generated “using a mapping between
concept types used in acquiring data from an OLAP data source” does not
change the findings as to the “in response to” limitation argued by
Appellants for the first time in the Reply. Appellants could have argued in
the Appeal Brief that the Examiner erred in finding Cras discloses the “in
response to” limitations, but Appellants chose not to do so, thereby waiving
the issue.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cras. Thus, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1.
Appellants argue the rejection of independent claims 8 and 15 are in
error for the same reasons argued in support of claim 1. App. Br. 20-48.
For the same reasons as claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cras. We also sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 2—7, 9-14, and 16—27, which are not argued
separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—27.
6
Appeal 2015-002335
Application 12/580,787
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7