Ex Parte Nelke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12983044 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/983,044 12/31/2010
46320 7590 09/30/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sebastian Nelke
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.
DE920100101US1 (694) 9504
EXAMINER
CHOI, MICHELE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEBASTIAN NELKE, MARTIN OBERHOFER,
YANNICK SAILLET, and JENS SEIFERT
Appeal2015-004425
Application 12/983,044
Technology Center 2100
Before KAMRAN JIV ANI, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decisions rejecting claims 5-15, which are all the claims
pending in the present application. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 1--4 are cancelled. App. Br. 15.
Appeal2015-004425
Application 12/983,044
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to data profiling within an enterprise
service bus coupling the source and target systems. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 5 is illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized):
5. A computer program product for data profiling during
Extract Transfer Load (ETL ), the computer program product
compnsmg:
a computer readable storage medium having computer
readable program code embodied therewith, the computer
readable program code comprising:
computer readable program code for receiving baseline
data profiling results obtained during ETL from at least one
source application to at least one target application;
computer readable program code for monitoring messages
in an enterprise service bus (ESB) to detect updates occurring in
the at least one source application;
computer readable program code for caching the detected;
computer readable program code for determining in the
ESB current data profiling results for the cached detected
updates; and,
computer readable program code for triggering an action
if a threshold disparity is detected upon comparing the current
data profiling results and the baseline data profiling results, the
threshold disparity being defined in a schema.
2
Appeal2015-004425
Application 12/983,044
The Rejections3
Claims 5-9 stand provisionally rejected for non-statutory obviousness
type double patenting over claims 1--4 of co-pending App. No. 13/407,712.
Claims 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
Claims 5-11 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Hyder (US 2006/0229899 Al; Oct. 12, 2006), Appleyard (US 2008/0040672
Al; Feb. 14, 2008), and Kass-Hout (US 2009/0319295 Al; Dec. 24, 2009).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hyder,
Appleyard, Kass-Hout, and Amiri (US 2007 /0233935 Al; Oct. 4, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Double Patenting
Claims 5-9 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1--4 of co-pending
Application No. 13/407,712. Final Act. 6-13. Appellants fail to address
this provisional rejection. Arguments not made are considered waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's provisional non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims 5-9.
Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 9 as indefinite. Final Act. 13.
With regard to claim 5, the Examiner finds the claimed "monitoring
3 Claims 5, 7-12, 14, and 15 further stand objected to because of a number
of informalities. App. Br. 2--4.
3
Appeal2015-004425
Application 12/983,044
messages in an enterprise service bus (ESB) to detect updates occurring in
the at least one source application" is amenable to two alternate
constructions, namely ( 1) "monitoring messages stored in an ESB to detect
updates in the at least one source application" or (2) "the operation of
monitoring of messages to be performed in an ESB to detect updates in the
at least one source application." Final Act. 13; Ans. 3--4. The Examiner
makes similar findings with regard to claim 9.
Appellants contend, the limitation "monitoring messages" "is clear
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could interpret the metes and
bounds of the claim." App. Br. 3. We agree with Appellants. The scope of
the limitation "monitoring messages" in claims 5 and 9 is clear: monitoring
messages in an enterprise service bus.
The Examiner further rejects claim 9 as indefinite, finding the claimed
thresholds being defined in a schema lack clear antecedent basis.
Specifically, the Examiner finds:
[I]t is unclear whether this limitation refers to the "defined
thresholds for comparing profiling results to baseline
measurements for each table" previously recited in claim 9, lines
10-11, or to the "defined thresholds for permissible variation
from baseline measurements for each table" previously recited in
claim 9, lines 12-13, or to both the "defined thresholds for
comparing profiling results to baseline measurements for each
table" previously recited in claim 9, lines 10-11 and the "defined
thresholds for permissible variation from baseline measurements
for each table" previously recited in claim 9, lines 12-13.
Ans. 5; Final Act. 14.
Appellants contend, the limitation "the thresholds being defined in a
schema" refers to "both thresholds-the defined thresholds for comparing
profiling results to baseline measurements for each table and also the defined
4
Appeal2015-004425
Application 12/983,044
thresholds for permissible variation from baseline measurements for each
table." Reply Br. 5.
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not be able to discern the metes and bounds of claim 9 as currently drafted,
in particular to which recited set of thresholds the disputed limitation refers.
Appellants' argument asserting the disputed limitation refers to both recited
sets of thresholds highlights the need for clarification of the claim language,
because one would not be able to discern that meaning absent Appellants'
clarification.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. We do, however,
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
Obviousness
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 5 because, in
Hyder, "there is no ETL from which to obtain baseline data profiling
results." App. Br. 10. Appellants elaborate, the "Examiner tries to show
that Hyder teaches ETL by demonstrating that Hyder teaches extraction
(scraping data), transformation (cleansing), and loading .... The mere
presence of the acts of extraction, transformation, and load does not teach or
suggest that an actual ETL process is being preformed [sic]." Reply Br. 8-9.
Appellants further argue Hyder does not meet the claimed data profiling
results because "there is no analysis of value distributions as well as patterns
in data described in Hyder." Reply Br. 10; App. Br. 10-11. Finally,
5
Appeal2015-004425
Application 12/983,044
Appellants assert, Appleyard's "request to fetch data is not equivalent to
monitoring messages to detect updates." App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 12.
We have considered Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and
the Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments for at least the following reasons.
First, Appellants fail to identify in the claim or the Specification, and
we are unable to find, a limiting definition of the claimed extraction,
transformation, and loading (ETL ). We apply the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim terms, consistent with the specification, as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Where, as
here, the Specification does not explicitly define a term, the term should be
given its ordinary meaning. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We are not persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
limitation at issue would preclude the Examiner's reading of the limitation
on Ryder's scraping data (extraction), cleansing (transformation), and
loading.
Second, Appellants fail to identify in the claim or the Specification,
and we are unable to find, a limiting definition of the claimed data profiling.
In the absence of an explicit definition, Appellants identify disclosure of
various applications of data profiling, some in which "data profiling
analyzes value distributions within a column ... as well as patterns in the
data" and others in which "data profiling can check if the values found
comply with certain constraints and business rules." Spec. i-f 4. We do not
read into the claim language exemplary, non-limiting statements from the
6
Appeal2015-004425
Application 12/983,044
Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
claimed data profiling reads on Ryder's teaching "the data cleanser task
manager 138 ensures that each scraped job description stored in the staging
database conforms to predetermined criteria." Ans. 6-7.
Third, the Examiner relies upon Appleyard as teaching or suggesting
the claimed monitoring messages to detect updates, finding:
Examiner interprets the requests sent to the ESB 530 to retrieve
the update information from the ESB 530 as the claimed
messages being monitored by the ESB 530 to detect updates
occurring in the at least one source application, i.e. to retrieve the
update information from the ESB 530, where the update
information was obtained from application data sources and
cached in the ESB 530.
Ans. 9.
Appellants contend, "a request to retrieve data is not equivalent to
monitoring messages," but fail to explain persuasively why the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claimed monitoring messages would not
encompass Appleyard's fetching update information. Reply. Br. 12. Based
on the record before us, we agree with the Examiner that Appleyard' s
fetching update information meets the claimed monitoring messages in an
enterprise service bus (ESB) to detect updates occurring in the at least one
source application.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 5. Appellants advance no further arguments concerning claims 6-15.
App. Br. 14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of these claims.
7
Appeal2015-004425
Application 12/983,044
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6-15 as obvious.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5-9 for non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1--4 of co-pending
Application No. 13/407,712.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 9 as indefinite.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 5 as indefinite.
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
8