Ex Parte Shafran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

12972756 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/972,756 12/20/2010
32864 7590 09/23/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON, P,C (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Victor Shafran
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.
13909-0247001/2010P00513U 1553
EXAMINER
PARK, GRACE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VICTOR SHAFRAN, ELIEZER LEVY, and
MICHAEL STOLLBERG1
Appeal2015-005024
Application 12/972,756
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, SHARON PENICK, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 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 AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to "generating richer, structured service
descriptions for enterprise services." Spec. i-f 20. "[E]nterprise services are
used ... to expose business functionality from enterprise systems," which
"makes the business functionality accessible and reusable in a variety of
applications and processes deployed in organizations." Id. i-f 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. Br. 4.
Appeal2015-005024
Application 12/972,756
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A computer-implemented method for generating structured
service descriptions corresponding to one or more enterprise
services, the method comprising:
storing one or more enterprise services in a business
service repository, each of the one or more enterprise services
being developed based on a governance process that provides
homogeneous naming conventions across enterprise services
stored within the business service repository, and being
associated with programmatic access information provided in a
first format and semi-structured information provided in a
second format, the first format being different than the second
format;
defining a unified schema based on the governance
process, the unified schema explicitly representing the
homogeneous naming conventions of the governance process;
executing, using one or more processors, a first data
importer and a second data importer, the first data importer being
used to retrieve and transform programmatic access information
associated with an enterprise service to structured data
corresponding to the unified schema, and the second data
importer being used to retrieve and transform semi-structured
information associated with the enterprise service to the
structured data corresponding to the unified schema;
retrieving first data and second data from the business
service repository using the first data importer and the second
data importer, respectively, the business service repository being
provided in a computer-readable storage medium and the first
data and the second data corresponding to the enterprise services;
automatically generating, using the one or more
processors, structured service descriptions based on the first data
and the second data, each of the structured service descriptions
corresponding to the unified schema and being associated with
one of the enterprise services; and
storing the structured service descriptions in a service
repository, the service repository being specific to the unified
2
Appeal2015-005024
Application 12/972,756
schema and being provided m a computer-readable storage
medium.
Rejections
Claims 1-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as obvious over the combination of Swaminathan et al. (US
2011/0072055 Al; Mar. 24, 2011) and Amaro et al. (US 2003/0177481 Al;
Sept. 18, 2003). Final Act. 5.
Claims 11 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Swaminathan, Amaro, and Blizniak et al. (US
2003/0220993 Al; Nov. 27, 2003). Final Act. 12.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Swaminathan, Amaro, and Chalana et al. (US 2011/0282934
Al; Nov. 17, 2011). Final Act. 13.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Swaminathan, Amaro, and Behrendt et al. (US
2009/0177634 Al; July 9, 2009). Final Act. 14.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Swaminathan teaches or
suggests "storing one or more enterprise services in a business service
repository, each of the one or more enterprise services being developed
based on a governance process that provides homogeneous naming
conventions across enterprise services stored within the business service
repository," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Swaminathan and Amaro teaches or suggests "defining a unified schema
based on the governance process, the unified schema explicitly representing
3
Appeal2015-005024
Application 12/972,756
the homogeneous naming conventions of the governance process," as recited
in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The "storing" step
Claim 1 recites "storing one or more enterprise services in a business
service repository, each of the one or more enterprise services being
developed based on a governance process that provides homogeneous
naming conventions across enterprise services stored within the business
service repository." The Examiner relies on Swaminathan for teaching or
suggesting this limitation. Final Act. 5.
Appellants contend that "in the method of Swaminathan[,] different
service description languages having different naming conventions for the
particular attributes are stored, which is different than storing enterprise
services that have homogenous naming conventions." Br. 13. Yet the
Examiner finds "this disclosure is merely a statement of the problem that
Swaminathan is intended to solve" and "Swaminathan further discloses ...
generating searchable service descriptions based on a normalized schema,
which defines a standard attribute name for each attribute." Ans. 2-3 (citing
Swaminathan if 45); Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds that
"[ s ]tandardizing attribute names teaches providing homogeneous naming
conventions because standardizing the attribute names means that the same
attribute in each service is provided with the same name." Ans. 3.
Appellants have not sufficiently persuaded us of any error in the
Examiner's findings. A mere assertion that the prior art does not teach a
particular element without meaningful explanation is unpersuasive. In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That is particularly true when,
4
Appeal2015-005024
Application 12/972,756
as here, the Examiner provides further explanation contradicting Appellants'
assertions.
"defining a unified schema ... "
Claim 1 also recites "defining a unified schema based on the
governance process, the unified schema explicitly representing the
homogeneous naming conventions of the governance process." The
Examiner relies on the combination of Swaminathan and Amaro for teaching
or suggesting this limitation. Final Act. 3--4.
While Appellants argue that Amaro's teaching is "different from the
governance process, which ... develops one or more enterprise services in a
business service repository" (Br. 14), the Examiner correctly points out that
Swaminathan was used for teaching that limitation, not Amaro. Ans. 4.
Appellants also contend that "no reasonable interpretation can equate
a governance process used to develop enterprise services [as claimed] to
[Amaro's] constraints of business entities used to generate a central
information mode." Br. 14. However, the Examiner finds Amaro teaches
"the business entities are generated by a process that is governed by business
constraints. As such, it is not unreasonable to equate generation of the
business entities and their properties based on the central information model
to a governance process used to develop enterprise services." Ans. 5---6
(citing Amaro i-fi-f 18, 102-103); Final Act. 3--4. Just as with the "storing"
step, Appellants have not sufficiently addressed these findings of the
Examiner, and a mere assertion that the prior art does not teach a particular
claim element without sufficient meaningful discussion is unpersuasive.
Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of any
error in the Examiner's findings.
5
Appeal2015-005024
Application 12/972,756
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2-20, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See
Br. 15; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-2 0.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6