Ex Parte Walker et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 14, 200909968064 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 14, 2009) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation