Ex Parte Schlueter et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 18, 201311646194 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARKUS SCHLUETER, PETER KARLHEINZ ZIMMERER, and HARALD FEY ____________ Appeal 2010-007022 Application 11/646,194 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-007022 Application 11/646,194 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for automatic validation of data extracted from an operational system. Spec. ¶ 0001. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 15 is illustrative of the invention (disputed limitation in italics): 15. A validation interface apparatus configured to validate an extraction process from an operational system to an OLAP ("Online Analytics Processing") system, the validation interface comprising: a first function module, the first function module configured to: receive, as input, information from a data source, read data from a queue, and generate, as output, structured data based at least in part upon the data read from the queue and upon the data source; a second function module, the second function module configured to: receive, as input, information from the data source for the operational system, and provide an output of at least one queue associated with the data source; and a third function module, the third function module configured to determine at least one of an existence and a uniqueness of selected data extracted by an extraction system performing the extraction process. Appeal 2010-007022 Application 11/646,194 3 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner has rejected claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Porter (US 7,321,939 B1, Jan. 22, 2008). Ans. 3-9. The Examiner has rejected claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porter and Wong (US 7,203,671 B1, Apr. 10, 2007). Ans. 9-19. ISSUES Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issues on appeal are: (1) Does Porter disclose a second function module configured to “provide an output of at least one queue associated with the data source,” as recited in claim 15? (2) Does Porter teach or suggest a processor adapted to “determine at least one of an existence and uniqueness of each of the at least one identifier in the structured data element,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claims 15-20 – Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Porter discloses a second function module configured to “provide an output of at least one queue associated with the data source,” as recited in claim 15. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 3-4. Specifically, Appellants argue that router 75 in Porter, which the Examiner identifies as the recited “second function module,” does not provide an output of a queue that is associated with the data source, but instead transmits a message to a target adapter queue that is associated with a receiving target. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 3-4 (citing Porter, col. 12, ll. 1-3, Fig. 4). The Examiner asserts that distribution of messages Appeal 2010-007022 Application 11/646,194 4 to a target from a data source causes the target to be associated with the data source. Ans. 21-22. In response, Appellants note that “[m]essages from a number of data sources 12 may be placed within the target queue.” Reply Br. 4 (quoting Porter, col. 10, ll. 63-65 (“A target adapter queue . . . provides input to a target adapter and . . . may contain messages from multiple sources.”)). Therefore, Appellants contend that Porter’s target adapter queue is not associated with a particular data source, but is instead associated with a target. Reply Br. 4. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that Porter discloses a second function module configured to “provide an output of at least one queue associated with the data source.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the § 102(e) rejection of independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16-20. Claims 1-14 – Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Porter teaches a processor adapted to “determine at least one of an existence and uniqueness of each of the at least one identifier in the structured data element,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 24-25; Reply Br. 6-8. The Examiner finds this limitation is taught by Porter’s recursive target, which receives information from the router and adds some unique transformation value to the information. Ans. 11 (citing Porter, col. 14, ll. 27-31). Appellants argue that such a value-added transformation does not meet the recited limitation, which requires determining whether an identifier in the data is unique. App. Br. 25. The Examiner responds to Appellants’ argument with an additional finding that this limitation is met by the content definition ID and source ID Appeal 2010-007022 Application 11/646,194 5 in Porter, which the Examiner asserts are equivalent to a unique identifier. Ans. 24 (citing Porter, col. 9, l. 66 – col. 10, l. 2; col. 10, ll. 39-50). In their Reply Brief, Appellants contend that the portions of Porter relied on by the Examiner do not address the issue of uniqueness as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 6. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not pointed to anything in Porter that teaches “determin[ing] at least one of an existence and uniqueness of each of the at least one identifier in the structured data element” or asserted that Wong cures the deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, independent claim 8 (which recites a similar limitation), and dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 are reversed. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation