Ex Parte Schlueter et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2013

11646194 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2013)

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