Ex Parte SxhmidtDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201713738686 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/738,686 01/10/2013 Olaf Sxhmidt 22135-0174001/120280us01 8783 32864 7590 02/01/2017 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER FERRER, JEDIDIAH P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2017 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 Appeal 2016-002447 Application 13/73 8,6861 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellant appeals 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. STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION The claims are directed to generating notifications for in-memory databases (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is SAP SE (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2016-002447 Application 13/738,686 1. A computer-implemented method for generating a notification from an in-memory database update, the method comprising: detecting an in-memory database event that inserts, deletes or modifies a first record in an in-memory database; executing a first database trigger that corresponds to the detected in-memory database event; identifying a first business event definition that is mapped to the executed first database trigger; and generating a first notification that corresponds to the identified first business event definition, the first notification generated for a first subscriber to the identified first business event definition. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Eberhard Samu Ovsyannikov Huang Kann US 6,212,514 B1 US 6,405,212 B1 US 2006/0190473 US 2011/0276349 US 2012/0023077 Apr. 3, 2001 June 11, 2002 A1 Aug. 24,2006 A1 Nov. 10,2011 A1 Jan. 26, 2012 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ovsyannikov (Final Act. 3—7). Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovsyannikov and Huang (id. at 8—19). Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovsyannikov and Samu (id. at 19-22). 2 Appeal 2016-002447 Application 13/738,686 Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovsyannikov, Samu, and Kann (id. at 22—26). Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovsyannikov and Eberhard (id. at 26—28). ISSUES § 102(b): Claims 1, 8, and 15 Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Ovsyannikov discloses “an in-memory database event that inserts, deletes or modifies a first record in an in-memory database,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which the appeal is taken (Final Act. 3— 29), the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—9). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Ovsyannikov discloses “an in-memory database event that inserts, deletes or modifies a first record in an in-memory database,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15 (App. Br. 10—17; Reply Br. 2—11). Specifically, Appellant argues “the plain meaning given by ‘those of ordinary skill in the 3 Appeal 2016-002447 Application 13/738,686 art’ to the term ‘in-memory database’ is very different from Ovsyannikov's computer storage media” (App. Br. 10-11). Appellant further argues because Ovsyannikov does not disclose an in-memory database, the triggers in Ovsyannikov do not insert, delete, or modify records for an in-memory database (App. Br. 16—17; Reply Br. 11). We are not persuaded. Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s broad, but reasonable interpretation that an “in-memory database” may include “computer storage devices with databases stored on them,” is in error (Ans. 4; Final Act. 28). Appellant does not explicitly define the term “in-memory database” in the claims or in the Specification. Rather, the Specification only provides examples of an in memory database, “such as SAP HANA” (Spec. 11, 14). Further, while Appellant asserts “the “[Specification . . . provides detailed subject matter related to an in-memory database” (Reply Br. 6), that assertion is not supported by any citation to the Specification or any explanation regarding what “detailed subject matter” is being taught. Indeed, Appellant does not proffer an interpretation for “in-memory database,” instead asserting an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have readily recognized that an ‘in-memory database’ is different from a traditional database based on the plain meaning of ‘in-memory database’ alone” (App. Br. 11). Furthermore, Appellant “assert[s] that an explicit definition is not required” (Reply Br. 6; see App. Br. 10, 11) and instead provides “general exemplary references” by providing links to webpages without explanation2 (Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added); App. Br. 11 (citations omitted)). Even further, Appellant asserts that 2 We note that copies of Appellant’s linked webpages have not been provided in the Appeal Brief’s Evidence Appendix (App. Br. 29). 4 Appeal 2016-002447 Application 13/738,686 “to one of ordinary skill in the art using only the ‘ordinary and customary meaning,’ aspects and features of an ‘in-memory’ database would be well- understood” {id. at 3), but then negates that assertion by stating that “Appellant[] do[es] not believe that it is necessary to focus solely on the ‘ordinary and customary meaning given to [an in-memory database] by those of ordinary skill in the art’” {id. at 4). Thus, Appellant has not proffered any definition of an “in-memory database” or explained what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to be an “in-memory database.” Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner’s finding that an “in-memory database” may encompass “computer storage devices with databases stored on them,” is in error (Ans. 4; Final Act. 28). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Ovsyannikov “create[s], read[s], update[s], or delete[s]” data in database based on a trigger (Final Act. 4 (citing Ovsyannikov 1 53, Fig. 2)). The Examiner further finds (Final Act. 28; see also Ans. 6—7), and we agree, Ovsyannikov’s database is provided in a computing system that executes “program modules including] routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc.[,] that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types” stored in computer storage (Ovsyannikov 118; see also Ovsyannikov H 20-23). Ovsyannikov further describes the system memory includes the computer storage memory which includes data that are immediately accessible to and/or presently being operated on by the processing unit (Ans. 6; Ovsyannikov 121). Thus, we find Ovsyannikov describes the recited “in-memory database.” 5 Appeal 2016-002447 Application 13/738,686 Appellant’s argument that “a person of ordinary skill in the art, based at least on the plain meaning of ‘in-memory database’ alone, and especially in light of Appellant[’s] specification, would readily recognize that an ‘in memory database’ ... is different from” Ovsyannikov’s database (Reply Br. 2—3; App. Br. 10-11) is not persuasive. Appellant concludes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to distinguish an in-memory database from Ovsyannikov’s database, but Appellant proffers no evidence or explanation of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider an in-memory database. Specifically, Appellant does not, for example, provide a specific citation to the Specification defining an in-memory database or analysis explaining how an in-memory database is different than the database stored by Ovsyannikov (see Reply Br. 2—3, 5—6, 9-11; see also App. Br. 10-14, 16—17). As such, Appellant has not provided us persuasive argument or evidence that the Examiner’s finding that Ovsyannikov’s database is an “in-memory database” is in error. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Ovsyannikov discloses “an in memory database event that inserts, deletes or modifies a first record in an in-memory database,” within the meaning of claims 1, 8, and 15. § 102(b)/§ 103(a): Remaining Claims 2—7, 9—14, and 16—20 Dependent claims 2—7, 9-14, and 16—20 are not separately argued by Appellant and, thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claims (see App. Br. 17). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 7, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ovsyannikov, dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovsyannikov and Huang, 6 Appeal 2016-002447 Application 13/738,686 dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovsyannikov and Samu, dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovsyannikov, Samu, and Kann, and dependent claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovsyannikov and Eberhard. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ovsyannikov is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovsyannikov and Huang is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovsyannikov and Samu is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovsyannikov, Samu, and Kann is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovsyannikov and Eberhard 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation