Ex Parte Polo-Malouvier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12253518 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/253,518 10/17/2008 Ricardo Polo-Malouvier
52025 7590 07/05/2016
SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST A VENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
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.
2008P00239US 9507
EXAMINER
WITZENBURG, BRUCE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
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 RICARDO POLO-MALOUVIER,
BRUNO DUMANT, and BOGDAN MARINOIU
Appeal2015-001156
Application 12/253,518
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 7-19, and 22-30. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP France S.A. Br.
2.
2 Claims 5, 6, 20, and 21 have been cancelled. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-001156
Application 12/253,518
Invention
The claims are directed to a method of providing selected prioritized
information about an entity from a database. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
determining a first set of attribute-value pairs associated
with an entity, the first set of attribute-value pairs comprising a
plurality of attributes and first values, and respective ones of the
first values corresponding to each of the plurality of attributes;
determining a second set of attribute-value pairs
associated with the entity, the second set of attribute-value pairs
comprising the plurality of attributes and second values, and
respective ones of the second values corresponding to each of the
plurality of attributes;
generating index entries, each of the index entries
indicating one of the first set or the second set of attribute-value
pairs, an attribute of the indicated set of attribute-value pairs, a
value of the attribute of the indicated set of attribute-value pairs,
and the entity;
determining an entity profile comprising an entity
identifier and a plurality of attribute-value pairs associated with
the entity identifier, wherein determining the entity profile
comprises:
determining an attribute associated with the entity
identifier;
determining that a priority of the first set of attribute-value
pairs is higher than a priority of the second set of attribute-value
pairs for the determined attribute;
adding an attribute-value pair comprising a first value
associated with the determined attribute from the first set of
2
Appeal2015-001156
Application 12/253,518
attribute-value pairs to the entity profile and not adding an
attribute value pair comprising a second value associated with
the determined attribute from the second set of attribute-value
pairs to the entity profile;
determining a second attribute associated with the entity
identifier;
determining that the second attribute is a multi-valued
attribute;
determining a second two values associated with the
determined second attribute, a first one of the second two values
associated with the first set of attribute-value pairs, and a second
one of the second two values associated with the second set of
attribute-value pairs; and
adding an attribute-value pair comprising the first one of
the second two values, the second one of the second two values
and the determined second attribute to the entity profile.
Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kongalath
Weissman
US 2006/0074961 Al Apr. 6, 2006
US 2007/0124276 Al May 31, 2007
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1--4, 7-19, and 22-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Weissman and Kongalath. Final Act. 2-9.
3
Appeal2015-001156
Application 12/253,518
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' argument that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-14 (mailed Dec. 12, 2013)), the findings
and reasons set forth by the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2 (mailed Feb. 21,
2014)), and the findings and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer
(Ans. 2-14 (mailed Aug. 26, 2014)). We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and
argument for emphasis as follows.
Issue 1 - "set of attribute-value pairs"
Appellants contend the combination of Weissman and Kongalath does
not teach or suggest "the first set of attribute-value pairs comprising a
plurality of attributes and first values, and respective ones of the first values
corresponding to each of the plurality of attributes ... the second set of
attribute-value pairs comprising the plurality of attributes and second values,
and respective ones of the second values corresponding to each of the
plurality of attributes," as recited in claims 1, 10, 16, and 25. 3 Br. 10-11.
Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner's Final Office Action "includes
3 Appellants include claim 20 in the group of claims reciting the disputed
limitation; however, claim 20 has been cancelled. Br. 10, 22. Appellants'
inclusion of claim 20 appears to be a typographical error because Appellants
later discuss independent claim 25, which includes the disputed limitation.
Br. 11. Accordingly, we treat Appellants' arguments as directed to claim 25
rather than claim 20.
4
Appeal2015-001156
Application 12/253,518
a statement that the rejection is 'technically incorrect"' regarding the
definition of a "set" and accordingly "the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness has not been met." Id. at 11 (citing Final Act. 11 ).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Weissman
teaches a table including column headings that define attributes about an
organization, e.g., organization ID, table ID, name, and ownership. Ans. 5
(citing Weissman Fig. 3, i-fi-139-40); see Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner
further finds, and we agree, Weissman's table includes table data values
corresponding to those attributes, e.g., "ood 1," "ood2," "Enterprise," and
"Constellation." Ans. 5 (citing Weissman Fig. 3, i-fi-139-40); see Final Act.
2-3. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, the column headings and
their corresponding data values (i.e., attribute-value pairs) are grouped into
sets according to their associated organization, e.g., org # 1. Ans. 5---6 (citing
Weissman Fig. 3, i-fi-139-40); see Final Act. 3, 10.
Appellants' argument, that the Examiner was incorrect in determining
that the language in the claims do not define a set (Br. 10-11 ), does not
address the Examiner's findings that Weissman's table is grouped into sets
(corresponding to organizations) of attribute-value pairs (column headings
and their corresponding table data). Ans. 5---6 (citing Weissman Fig. 3,
i-fi-139-40); see Final Act. 10; see also Adv. Act. 2. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Weissman and
Kongalath teaches or suggests "the first set of attribute-value pairs
comprising a plurality of attributes and first values, and respective ones of
the first values corresponding to each of the plurality of attributes ... the
second set of attribute-value pairs comprising the plurality of attributes and
5
Appeal2015-001156
Application 12/253,518
second values, and respective ones of the second values corresponding to
each of the plurality of attributes," as recited in claims 1, 10, 16, and 25.
Issue 2 - "determining an entity profile"
Appellants contend the combination of Weissman and Kongalath does
not teach or suggest "determining an entity profile comprising an entity
identifier and a plurality of attribute-value pairs associated with the entity
identifier," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10, 16, and
25. Br. 11-12. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner "does not cite
any reference in support of the rejection." Id. at 12 (citing Final Act. 3).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, an entity
profile is created by Weissman in response to a database query. Ans. 9-10;
see Adv. Act. 2. In particular, the Examiner finds Weissman responds to a
query by constructing a joined table based on accounts and corresponding
filtered account data. Ans. 9-10 (citing Weissman i-fi-157---60, 72); see Final
Act. 3--4 (citing Weissman i-fi-186-93, 96-97). Indeed, Weissman's query
response includes entity identification and corresponding filtered data.
Weissman i-fi-f 102-103.
Appellants' argument, that the Examiner has not "cite[d] any
reference" teaching or suggesting an entity profile (Br. 11-12), does not
address the Examiner's finding that Weissman creates a joined table
including entity identifiers and associated attributes in response to a query.
Ans. 9-10 (citing Weissman i-fi-157---60, 72); see Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Weissman i-fi-186-93, 96-97); see also Adv. Act. 2. We note that the
Examiner points out that the Examiner's findings and citations are provided
in subsequent claim limitations which further define the entity profile and
6
Appeal2015-001156
Application 12/253,518
associated components. Ans. 8-9; Adv. Act. 2. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Weissman and
Kongalath teaches or suggests "determining an entity profile comprising an
entity identifier and a plurality of attribute-value pairs associated with the
entity identifier," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10, 16,
and 25. 4
Issue 3 - "priority"
Appellants contend the combination of Weissman and Kongalath does
not teach or suggest "determining that a priority of the first set of attribute-
value pairs is higher than a priority of the second set of attribute-value pairs
for the determined attribute; [and] adding an attribute-value pair comprising
a first value associated with the determined attribute from the first set of
attribute-value pairs to the entity profile and not adding an attribute-value
pair comprising a second value associated with the determined attribute from
the second set of attribute-value pairs to the entity profile," as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10, 16, and 25. Br. 11-13.
Specifically, Appellants argue "[ t Jo apply Kongalath, a user must have
advance knowledge of what is the priority information, and assign that
priority information to data field location(s) that were designated as high
priority when the database structure was created." Id. at 12-13.
4 We note claim 1 is unclear regarding which steps comprise the process of
"determining an entity profile." The steps recited subsequent to
"determining the entity profile comprises" do not indicate, through
formatting or otherwise, whether those steps are part of the process of
"determining the entity profile." See Br. 16-17.
7
Appeal2015-001156
Application 12/253,518
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Weissman
teaches a database query response which retrieves filtered database data.
Final Act. 3--4 (citing Weissman i-fi-153, 72); Ans. 9 (citing Weissman i-fi-157-
60). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Kongalath teaches database
data can be selected and retrieved (i.e., filtered) based on priority. Final Act.
5 (citing Kongalath i-fi-f 14, 32); Ans. 11-12. The Examiner combines
Weissman and Kongalath, resulting in database query responses which
retrieve database data that has been filtered based on priority. Final Act. 5.
Appellants' argument, that priority information must be known in
advance and assigned (Br. 12-13), is only supported by attorney argument
and Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument that
applying priority-based filtering in Weissman requires that priority
information is known in advance and assigned. In re Pearson, 494 F .2d
1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the
place of evidence."). As such, we are not persuaded that integrating priority-
based data retrieval in Weissman's system would have been "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an
unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, even ifthe
combination did require priority information that is known in advance and
assigned, the claim does not limit the manner in which priority is determined
and applied and so does not preclude priority filtering using priority
information that is known in advance and assigned. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Weissman and
Kongalath teaches or suggests "determining that a priority of the first set of
attribute-value pairs is higher than a priority of the second set of attribute-
8
Appeal2015-001156
Application 12/253,518
value pairs for the determined attribute; [and] adding an attribute-value pair
comprising a first value associated with the determined attribute from the
first set of attribute-value pairs to the entity profile and not adding an
attribute-value pair comprising a second value associated with the
determined attribute from the second set of attribute-value pairs to the entity
profile," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10, 16, and 25.
Issue 4 - "mono-valued"
Appellants contend Weissman does not teach or suggest "determining
that one of the plurality of attributes is mono-valued," as recited in claim 10
and commensurately recited in claim 25. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellants
argue the claim requires a "mono-valued" attribute to indicate "a logical
characteristic of the attribute" using a Boolean value. Id. (citing Spec. 4: 19--
21).
Initially, we observe that the Specification does not explicitly define
that a mono-valued attribute requires a logical characteristic indicated by a
Boolean value. The portion of the Specification Appellants cite states that
an "attribute may also be associated with a Boolean value (e.g., is_mono_-
valued)," suggesting that the use of a Boolean value is an example of a
mono-valued attribute. Spec. 4: 19--21 (emphasis added). As such, a mono-
valued attribute does not require a logical characteristic indicated by a
Boolean value.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Weissman's database query
responses include attributes that correspond to a single requested database
value, e.g., "fax number" or "User Group ID" attributes. Ans. 13-14 (citing
Weissman i-f 39, Fig. 4). We agree with the Examiner that, because those
9
Appeal2015-001156
Application 12/253,518
attributes correspond to single data values, those attributes are mono-valued.
Id. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding
Weissman teaches or suggests "determining that one of the plurality of
attributes is mono-valued," within the meaning of claims 10 and 25.
Remaining claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-15, 17-19, 22-24, and 26-30
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to dependent claims 2--4, 7-9, 11-15, 17-19, 22-24,
and 26-30. See Br. 13-14. For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 7-19, and 22-30 is affirmed.
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
10