Ex Parte Thomas

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 26, 2012

11363239 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 26, 2012)

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.
11/363,239 02/28/2006 Susan Marie Thomas 07781.0287-00 5638
60668 7590 04/26/2012
SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
WU, YICUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SUSAN MARIE THOMAS
____________

Appeal 2010-000198
Application 11/363,2391
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-22, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Application filed February 28, 2006. The real party in interest is SAP AG.
(App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2010-000198
Application 11/363,239

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates generally to the field of data
transformation. More particularly, the invention on appeal is directed to
“systems and methods for schema mapping and the transformation of data.”
(Spec. 2, ¶ [001].)2
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A computer-implemented method for schema mapping
and data transformation, the method comprising the following
steps performed by a processor:
loading a conceptual model, wherein the conceptual
model contains at least one conceptual object;
loading a source schema and a source instance;
converting the source schema and the source instance
into a source model;
acquiring from a user, at least one forward mapping
usable to map at least a source attribute of the source model to a
conceptual attribute of the conceptual model, wherein the
forward mapping includes a mapping formula;
loading a target schema and a target instance;
converting the target schema and the target instance into
a target model; and

2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), Reply Br. (“Reply Br.”)
filed August 28, 2009) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed April 23, 2009.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 20, 2009.
Appeal 2010-000198
Application 11/363,239

3
reverse mapping at least a conceptual attribute of the
conceptual model to a target attribute of the target model based
on the forward mapping and the mapping formula.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Daniel (US Pat. 6,785,689 B1, August 31, 2004) and
Tabbara (US Pat. 6,460,043 B1, October 1, 2002).
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 – Reverse mapping
Issue
Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Daniel and Tabbara would have taught or suggested “reverse mapping at
least a conceptual attribute of the conceptual model to a target attribute of
the target model based on the forward mapping and the mapping formula”
(emphasis added), within the meaning of independent claim 1 and the
commensurate limitations recited in independent claims 10 and 14?
Discussion
Appellant contends, inter alia:
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner alleges that
Tabbara teaches the “conceptual model” and “reverse
Appeal 2010-000198
Application 11/363,239

4
mapping,” as recited in claim 1. Final Office Action, p.5. In
particular, the Examiner alleges the conceptual schema of
Tabbara constitutes the claimed “conceptual model,” and Fig 5a
of Tabbara teaches the claimed “reverse mapping.” Id. The
Examiner’s allegations are incorrect for at least the following
reasons.
(App. Br. 12.)
The Examiner’s prima facie case asserts inter alia:
Tabbara is not silent with respect to whether the mapping
procedures are reversible. Tabbara clearly teaches mapping
from conceptual schema physical schema (fig. 4a step 67-69)
and mapping of physical data to conceptual rowsets (fig. 5a),
which is considered as schema by the examiner.
Tabbara col. 42, lines 29-34 “The CCO 284 includes a
reasoning engine that provides for the translation from a CQL
to physical DML query(s) and also translates back the resulting
physical rowset(s) to a conceptual rowset(s)”, col. 9, lines 55-
lines 63 also shows this limitation.
(Ans. 8.) We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to
the limitation at issue. (Ans. 4.)
In particular, we are in agreement with the Examiner that Tabbara
teaches or suggests “reverse mapping.” As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 8),
Tabbara discloses translation (mapping) from the CQL to physical queries
and from the resulting physical rowsets to conceptual rowsets. (Tabbara,
col. 42, ll. 29-34.) Therefore, it is our view that Tabbara teaches or suggests
both forward mapping (CQL to physical) and reverse mapping (physical to
conceptual) based on the described mapping (translation). Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Tabbara to teach or suggest that “a
conceptual model” and “reverse mapping” were known in the art at the time
of the invention. Thus, the combined teachings of Daniel (teaching or
suggesting) mapping from source to target – see Ans. 4 and Daniel, Figs. 2a-
Appeal 2010-000198
Application 11/363,239

5
b – and Tabbara (discussed supra) would have taught or suggested the
limitation at issue.
Appellant further contends that Tabbarra does not suggest “reverse
mapping at least a conceptual attribute … based on the forward mapping
and the [same] mapping formula.” (Reply Br. 2 (emphasis in original).)
Appellant argues that because Tabbara discloses two methods of mapping,
the reverse mapping cannot be based on the same mapping formula as the
forward mapping. (Id.) Additionally, Appellant argues that Tabbara does
not teach “forward mapping . . . to map . . . to a conceptual attribute of the
conceptual model.” (Reply Br. 3 (emphasis in original).)
We note that Appellant presents these arguments for the first time in
their Reply Brief. (Reply Br. 2-3.) We deem these arguments to be waived.
Appellant has not explained why, nor is it apparent that, these arguments
were necessitated by a new point in the Answer or any other circumstance
constituting “good cause” for their belated presentation.3
Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting representative claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-22 which fall therewith.

3 See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (“informative”)
(absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to address
arguments in the Reply Brief that could have been presented in the principal
Brief – “the reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could
have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s
rejections, but were not.”).
Appeal 2010-000198
Application 11/363,239

6
Motivation/Teaching Away
Issue
Under §103, did the Examiner err in combining Daniel and Tabbara
because the cited combination teaches away from claim 1?
Discussion
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s proposed combination teaches
away from Appellant’s claim 1. (App. Br. 13.) More specifically, Appellant
contends that in Tabbara, the conceptual schema is only mapped to a
physical schema in a single direction and, therefore, teaches away from
claim 1 which requires performed mapping in both and reverse directions.
(App. Br. 13-14.)
We do not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive. It is our view
that the Examiner relied on Tabbara to teach or suggest “reverse mapping”
at the time of Appellant’s invention. (Ans. 3-4.) We agree with the
Examiner’s determination that Tabbara discloses mapping from conceptual
to physical and physical to conceptual (reverse). (Ans. 8.) Tabbara does not
criticize or discourage “reverse mapping” as claimed.4 Based on this record,

4 “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path
set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the
path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed.Cir.1994). See also
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that merely
disclosing more than one alternative does not teach away from any of these
alternatives if the disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the alternatives).

Appeal 2010-000198
Application 11/363,239

7
we conclude that the Examiner’s cited combination of references do not
teach away from claim 1.
Based on our analysis (supra), we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1-22. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1-22.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb