Ex Parte Weinberg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201612276055 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/276,055 11/21/2008 Paul N. Weinberg 52025 7590 06/01/2016 SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC 50 LOCUST A VENUE NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 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. 2008P00327US (S20.123) 3272 EXAMINER HUTTON, NAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 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): martin@BMTPATENT.COM szpara@bmtpatent.com colabella@bmtpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL N. WEINBERG and EUGENE CHERNY Appeal2014-007986 Application 12/276,055 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-007986 Application 12/276,055 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (a) from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 20-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a method of representing an xml schema definition and data within a relational database management system using a reusable custom-defined nestable compound data type. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for mapping data from a hierarchical data file to a database comprising: obtaining the hierarchical data file wherein said hierarchical data file includes hierarchical source data and; determining a nested hierarchy of the hierarchical data file to generate a hierarchy of tuples to represent the relations described in a data description file; determining a schema for said hierarchical source data; creating a tuple definition associated with the database, the tuple definition specifying a set of related fields for a tuple record wherein at least one field is a nested field, wherein a tuple is a reusable object-oriented object comprising the set of related fields and is nested to form hierarchical one-to-many relationships with other tuples; generating the nested hierarchy of tuples to represent the relations described in the data description file; 1 Appellants indicate that the real party in interest is SAP AG. (App. Br. 2). 2 Appeal2014-007986 Application 12/276,055 creating a table for the database, wherein an entry in a first field in the table contains a linked list of pointers to instances of tuple records; based on the entry in the first field, creating a tuple record to store data for each of the set of related fields; associating said hierarchical source data with the tuple record; and populating said tuple record with data values from said hierarchical source data. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Durand et al. Murthy et al. Charlet et al. us 5,694,598 US 2003/0140308 Al US 7,822,786 B2 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Dec. 2, 1997 July 24, 2003 Oct. 26, 2010 Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Charlet in view of Murthy and further in view of Durand. ANALYSIS Appellants set forth the arguments regarding independent claims 1 and 20 together. We find the independent claim 20 contains similar limitations, and we address independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim. Appellants contend: 3 Appeal2014-007986 Application 12/276,055 Murthy's array of REFs read on the claimed linked list of pointers to instances of tuple records. As stated at paragraph [0115] of Murthy, a REF points at another instance of an XML[]Type and thus Murthy discloses an array of pointers to XML types. While the Final Office Action alleges that Murthy discloses a linked list of pointers to instance of tuple records, Appellants submit that the Final Office Action's interpretation of "linked list" runs afoul of the plain meaning of "linked list". As defined by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the plain meaning of a linked list is "A list implemented by each item having a link to the next item." (App. Br. 5; fn. omitted). The Examiner finds Appellants' argument to be unpersuasive and relies upon paragraphs 115-118, and page 48 of the Murthy reference to teach and suggest the claimed "linked list." The Examiner further contends that "[ o ]ne [of] ordinary [] skill would understand that the Array data type can comprise pointer data type such as a REF data type as illustrated by [the Murthy] reference." (Ans. 3). We disagree with the Examiner and find that in the Examiner's claim interpretation and interpretation of the Murthy reference to be unreasonable in light of the plain meaning of the term "linked list." Consequently, we find the Examiner has not set forth a proper conclusion of obviousness based upon factual finding supported by the prior art references. Because the Examiner paints with a broad brush in making the obviousness rejection, we are left to speculate as to the precise details of how each argued claim limitation is expressly or inherently described by the portion of the Murthy reference relied on by the Examiner. We note that the Board is a reviewing body and not a place of initial examination. 4 Appeal2014-007986 Application 12/276,055 Furthermore, the Examiner has not identified how the teachings of the Charlet and Durand references remedy the noted deficiency. Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner has not properly established factual determinations and articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness for independent claims 1 and 20, resulting in a failure to establish a prima facie of obviousness. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 20-24 based upon the combination of Charlet, Murthy, and Durand. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 20-24 based upon obviousness. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation