13407712 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

Ex Parte Nelke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 15, 2016

13407712 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

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. 13/407,712 02/28/2012 Sebastian Nelke DE920100101US2 2162 (694DIV) 46320 7590 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, EL 33434 12/19/2016 EXAMINER CHOI, MICHELE C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2016 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 Appeal 2015-004631 Application 13/407,7121 Technology Center 2100 Before KAMRAN JIVANI, JOHN D. HAMANN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge. REQUEST FOR REHEARING On November 30, 2016, Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (“Req. Reh’g”) requesting reconsideration of our Decision on Appeal of September 30, 2016 (“Dec.”). In our Decision, we affirmed, inter alia, the rejection of claims 1—4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellants’ Request for Rehearing, but Appellants have not persuaded us that we misapprehended overlooked any matters in our Decision. Therefore, we deny Appellants’ Request for Rehearing. 1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2015-004631 Application 13/407,7120F ANALYSIS At issue is the following limitation in independent claim 1: “receiving baseline data profiling results obtained during extract transform load (ETL).” Req. Reh’g. 3. Appellants contend “the Board did not show where in Hyder an ETL is present from which baseline data profiling results are obtained. Instead, the Board established two different claim constructions- an ETL as ‘scraping data’, ‘cleaning’ and ‘loading’ and data profiling as a ‘data cleaner task’.” Id. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given in our prior Decision. More specifically, we remain unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument regarding the construction of “extract transform load (ETL)” because it is not responsive to the Examiner’s findings as adopted by the Board. Contrary to Appellants’ contention, we did not construe “ETL to mean ‘scraping data’, ‘cleaning’ and ‘loading.’” Id. Rather, we specifically found in our Decision that Appellants failed to identify in the Specification a limiting definition that “would preclude the Examiner’s reading of the limitation on Hyder’s scraping data (extraction), cleansing (transformation), and loading.” Dec. 5. Relying on paragraph 2 of the Specification, Appellants now assert “the meaning of ETL to be ‘a data movement process between systems.’” Accepting arguendo this contention, Appellants nevertheless fail to explain persuasively why this constmction “would preclude the Examiner’s reading of the limitation on Hyder’s scraping data (extraction), cleansing (transformation), and loading.” Dec. 5. We are similarly not persuaded by Appellants’ argument regarding the claimed data profiling results. Req. Reh’g 5. In our Decision, we particularly declined to read into the claim language exemplary, non-limiting 2 Appeal 2015-004631 Application 13/407,7120F statements from the Specification that Appellants cite here. Compare Req. Reh’g 5 (citing Spec. 14) with Dec. 5 (citing Spec. 14). We continue to refuse such importation. Additionally, even if we accepted Appellants’ constmction (which we do not), Appellants fail to explain persuasively why Hyder’s results from ensuring data conformation, performed on scraped data (i.e., extracted data) during the cleansing process (i.e., transformation), would not teach or suggest the claimed “data profiling results obtained during extract transform load.” Accordingly, Appellants fail to show that we misapprehended or overlooked arguments and evidence in rendering our Decision. We, therefore, deny Appellants’ Request for Rehearing. CONCLUSION We have granted Appellant’s Request for Rehearing to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision dated September 30, 2016. Appellants have not shown that we misapprehended or overlooked any issue of law or fact in reaching that decision. Accordingly, we deny Appellants’ Request for Rehearing. 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). REHEARING DENIED 3