Ex Parte Walker et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 14, 2009

09968064 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 14, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SHIRLEY J.R. WALKER, PAUL A. POLO, and
STEVEN E. GILES
____________________

Appeal 2007-003445
Application 09/968,0641
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: August 14, 2009
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

1 Application filed October 1, 2001. The real party in interest is SAS
Institute, Inc.

Appeal 2007-003445
Application 09/968,064

On May 19, 2008, Appellants filed a request for rehearing seeking
reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated March 19, 2008, wherein the
Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 28 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e). Appellants argue that Board misapprehended the Kane reference
with respect to claim 1. (Req. Reh. 1).
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and means for mapping one
column of data to another column of data. In the words of the Appellants:
In data warehouses, the process of transforming the data
of input tables to output tables is called mapping. A data
warehouse can contain many mappings as input tables are
manipulated to form the output tables a user requires.
However, present computer tools do not efficiently allow
column mapping to be performed. The present invention
overcomes this inefficiency and other disadvantages. In
accordance with the teachings of the present invention, a
computer-implemented system and method are provided for
mapping a computer data input column to a computer data
output column. The input column and the output column have
attributes. Information is received about at least one of the
input column attributes and at least one of the output column
attributes.
At least one of the input column attributes is compared to
at least one of the output column attributes to determine a
likelihood ranking for mapping the input column to the output
column. The likelihood ranking is between zero and one-
hundred percent certain. The decision whether to map the input
column to the output column is based upon the likelihood
ranking.
(Spec. 1, bottom).

2
Appeal 2007-003445
Application 09/968,064

ANALYSIS
Appellants first contend that their claimed invention maps
columns/fields based on a likelihood ranking but that the Kane reference
uses likelihood ranking to map rows/records. (Req. Reh. 1, bottom). We
have considered this argument, but do not find it persuasive, as the very
words of Kane indicate the opposite: “The system also includes means for
mapping at least one target database field to corresponding source fields of
each of a plurality of source databases.” (Col. 2, ll. 5-7). Throughout the
specification of the Kane patent, we find a number of references to mapping
fields, in addition to the one quoted above. (E.g., col. 2, l. 21, col. 5, l. 37,
etc.). We thus find that Appellants have not identified a point which the
Board misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision.
Appellants next argue that the purpose of the likelihood ranking of
claim 1 is different from the priority number of Kane; thus Kane cannot
anticipate the claims. (Req. Reh. 2, bottom). The standard for a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 was stated in our reviewing court as follows: “In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that
discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp.,
432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). In the Decision on
Appeal, we addressed the presence of the “likelihood ranking” claim
limitation and found it present in the teachings of Kane. (Decision on
Appeal, p. 7-8). As we found the claim limitations to be in the Kane
3
Appeal 2007-003445
Application 09/968,064

reference, the standard for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) has been
met, and any alleged argument concerning purpose is deemed irrelevant.
Regarding the statement by Appellants that the reference failed to
show an automated approach (Req. Reh. 3, middle), we reiterate the findings
and conclusions from the Opinion, page 8, middle, wherein the issue was
addressed. Therefore, Appellants have not identified any points
misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in our decision as required by
37 CFR § 41.52.
DECISION
The Request has been granted with respect to considering the points
raised by Appellants, but no modification will be made to the Board decision
entered March 19, 2008.
REHEARING DENIED

PEB

PATENT GROUP 2N
JONES DAY
NORTH POINT
901 LAKESIDE AVE.
CLEVELAND, OH 44114

4