Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2017

13757158 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2017)

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.
13/757,158 02/01/2013 Olaf Schmidt 22135-0172001/120055US01 8925
32864 7590 08/23/2017
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
MCQUITERY, DIEDRA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2017 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLAF SCHMIDT and MARTIN P. FISCHER
Appeal 2017-003865
Application 13/757,158
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EVANS, SCOTT E. BAIN, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3—11, 13—16, and 18—23. Br. 6.2 Claims 2, 12, and 17
have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as SAP SE. Br. 4.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”)
mailed September 24, 2015, (2) the Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.”) mailed
December 30, 2015, (3) the Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed March 23, 2016, and
(4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed August 12, 2016.
Appeal 2017-003865
Application 13/757,158
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to migrating business applications to
cloud-based services and applications. Spec. 11. In particular, the
invention migrates on-premise data objects used by on-premise applications
to on-demand data objects used by on-demand applications. Id. 12. On­
premise applications can be locally accessible programs operated by an
enterprise. Id. 122. On-demand applications can be remotely accessible
programs provided by a cloud service provider. Id.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with the limitation at issue in italics:
1. A computer-implemented method for automatically
migrating on-premise data objects to on-demand data objects,
the method being executed using one or more processors and
comprising:
identifying a first mapping between an on-premise
database and the on-premise data objects according to a first
schema associated with the on-premise database, the on­
premise database and the on-premise data objects used by an
on-premise application that is executed within an on-premise
computing environment;
based on the first mapping, extracting, by the one or
more processors, data corresponding to a subset of the on­
premise data objects that are affected during execution of the
on-premise application, the data being stored in the on-premise
database;
generating, by the one or more processors, an export file,
the export file comprising the data;
in response to and subsequent to identifying the first
mapping, identifying, by the one or more processors, a second
mapping between the subset of the on-premise data objects and
the on-demand data objects;
generating, by the one or more processors, an import file
based on i) the export file and ii) the second mapping; and
providing the import file to an on-demand computing
environment that hosts an on-demand application, the import
2
Appeal 2017-003865
Application 13/757,158
file being processable by the on-demand computing
environment to write the data from the import file into an on-
demand database, the on-demand database and the on-demand
data objects used by the on-demand application that is executed
within the on-demand computing environment, the on-demand
data objects being affected during execution of the on-demand
application,
wherein the on-premise data objects are associated with
an on-premise process executed by the on-premise application,
the on-demand data objects are associated with an on-demand
process executed by the on-demand application, and the on-
demand process and the on-premise process provide a same
process result.
THE REJECTION3
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Schmidt et al. US 2003/0074386 A1 Apr. 17, 2003
Mullins et al. US 2003/0208505 Al Nov. 6, 2003
Claims 1, 3—11, 13—16, and 18—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mullins and Schmidt. Final Act. 3—10.
ANALYSIS
In the proposed combination of Mullins and Schmidt, the Examiner
finds that Mullins teaches an application running at a customer’s location,
corresponding to the recited on-premise application. Final Act. 4 (citing
Mullins 1174). The Examiner further finds that Mullins’s database B1
corresponds to the recited on-premise database. Ans. 3 (citing Mullins
11146-48).
3 The rejection of independent claims 1 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, (Final Act. 2—3) has been withdrawn. See Adv. Act. 1.
3
Appeal 2017-003865
Application 13/757,158
Appellants argue that Mullins does not identify a mapping between an
on-premise database and on-premise data objects used by an on-premise
application. Br. 14—15. According to Appellants, Mullins explains that the
customer’s application is not at the same location as the corresponding
database. Id. at 14 (citing Mullins H 174—75). Appellants’ argument is
persuasive.
The Specification discloses that on-premise applications can be
locally accessible programs that access legacy data. Spec. 122. But
Appellants do not define the term “on premise” to confine our interpretation
to this example. Nevertheless, according to the claim language, the recited
identifying step requires an on-premise application and an on-premise
database. Because both are “on premise,” the recited application and
database must at least be at the same location.
The Examiner finds that Mullins’s database B1 corresponds to the
recited on-premise database, but the Examiner has not identified an
application at the same location that uses a data object, as recited.
Final Act. 4. In particular, Mullins’s system transfers data between two data
sources having different formats. See Mullins H 146-47, cited in
Final Act. 4. To facilitate this exchange, Mullins uses a dynamic mapping
layer so that the developer is not constrained by a particular database’s
structure. Mullins 1163. For example, the data sources can be a first
database B1 and a second database B2. Id. 1146. Using maps defining the
schema, a Java application can then transfer data from B1 and B2.
Id. 149-162, cited in Ans. 5. The Examiner, however, does not show that
the Java application and B1 are at the same location. See Final Act. 4.
4
Appeal 2017-003865
Application 13/757,158
Instead, the Examiner finds that Mullins’s application at the
customer’s location corresponds to the recited on-premise application.
Final Act. 4 (citing Mullins 1174); see also Ans. 6. But Mullins explains
that the corresponding database is not in the same location as this
application. Mullins 174—75, cited in Br. 14. In fact, Mullins expressly
states that (1) the application software is run at a customer’s location, and
(2) the production database or data store “is not at the site of the
application.” Mullins H 174—75.
The Examiner has not identified an alternative to this embodiment
(id.) that teaches or suggests the limitation at issue. According to the
Examiner, Mullins’s caching system, which coordinates the transactions,
comprises a “local computer system.” Ans. 4 (citing Mullins 132). But the
Examiner has not shown that this local system contains database B1 and the
customer’s application. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner also adds that (1)
Mullins’s computer is connected via local access to the Java Application
client and (2) the computer’s operating system contains an abstract or
translation layer. Ans. 3^4 (citing Mullins 187, 189, Figs. 3—6). The
abstract layer, also known as the translation layer, facilitates communication
between an application and a database. Mullins Tflf 170-71, 177. To the
extent that Mullins uses local components to communicate with a database,
the Examiner has not adequately explained why it follows that Mullins then
teaches or suggests that database B1 and the customer’s application are at
the same location. See Ans. 3—5.
Accordingly, we are convinced that the Examiner erred in finding that
Mullins teaches or suggests an identifying step involving an on-premise
database B1 and a customer’s on-premise application software, as recited.
5
Appeal 2017-003865
Application 13/757,158
The Examiner does not rely on Schmidt to teach the feature missing from
Mullins. See Final Act. 3—7.
On this record, the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) independent claim
1, (2) independent claims 11 and 16, which are rejected under the same
rationale (id. at 9), and (3) dependent claims 3—10, 13—15, and 18—23 for
similar reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—11, 13—16, and
18-23.
REVERSED
6