Ex Parte Westendorf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 15, 2013

11176270 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2013)

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.
11/176,270 07/08/2005 Frank Westendorf 07781.0252-00 4530
60668 7590 01/15/2013
SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
EVANS, KIMBERLY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2013 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 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte FRANK WESTENDORF, 7
MICHAEL IHLE, 8
and RALPH SCHNANRKOWSKI 9
___________ 10
11
Appeal 2011-003368 12
Application 11/176,270 13
Technology Center 3600 14
___________ 15
16
17
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 18
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. 19
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 20
DECISION ON APPEAL 21
Appeal 2011-003368
Application 11/176,270

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed May 24, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 4,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 4, 2010).
Frank Westendorf, Michael Ihle, and Ralph Schnanrkowski (Appellants) 2
seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-16, the 3
only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over 4
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 5
The Appellants invented a way of processing and the executing of 6
actions on the basis of the content of a data object. The content of the data 7
object may correspond to a fulfillment level of at least one event or incident. 8
This executes at least one action in response to the content of a data object 9
corresponding to a fulfillment level of at least one event or incident 10
triggering the at least one action. (Specification, para. 001). 11
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 12
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 13
paragraphing added]. 14
1. A computer-implemented method 15
for executing at least one action 16
by a first server 17
in response to the content of a data object 18
corresponding to a fulfillment level 19
of at least one event or incident 20
triggering the at least one action, 21
the method comprising the steps, performed by a computer, of: 22
Appeal 2011-003368
Application 11/176,270

3
[1] receiving, 1
at the first server, 2
a notification regarding the at least one event or incident; 3
[2] decoupling 4
the at least one action 5
to be executed 6
from the at least one event or incident, 7
wherein the at least one action is determined 8
on the basis of the fulfillment level 9
of the at least one event or incident 10
on a second server; 11
and 12
[3] executing, 13
in case that the fulfillment level on the second 14
server 15
corresponds to 16
at least one predefined variable fulfillment level, 17
the action 18
according to a predefined execution plan object 19
schedule. 20
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 21
Lawson US 5,721,825 Feb. 24, 1998
Brown US 6,631,363 B1 Oct. 7, 2003
Jain US 7,089,265 B1 Aug. 8, 2006
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 22
unpatentable over Jain and Lawson. 23
Appeal 2011-003368
Application 11/176,270

4
Claims 6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 1
over Jain, Lawson, and Brown. 2
ISSUES 3
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether when Jain’s 4
transaction is a trigger transaction, the database management system 5
executes an action after sending a notification. 6
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 7
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 8
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 9
Facts Related to the Prior Art 10
Jain 11
01. Jain is directed to database management system that executes 12
independent database actions in response to events of interest. 13
Jain 1:8-11. 14
02. Jain performs actions, within a database management system, in 15
response to an event, where the actions are performed 16
independently relative to the operation that caused the event. An 17
event is detected in a transaction between a client and a database 18
and the database management system responds to the event by 19
initiating an independent database action. Because independent 20
database actions are performed by the database management 21
system automatically in response to the occurrence of their 22
corresponding event of interest, it is not necessary for a 23
notification to be sent to any client. Consequently, the round-trip 24
Appeal 2011-003368
Application 11/176,270

5
communication associated with the notification approach is 1
avoided. Further, because the independent database action is 2
performed without interference to the triggering transaction, the 3
triggering transaction does not suffer the performance penalty 4
associated with the trigger approach. Jain 1:60 – 2:11. 5
03. Jain’s queue 140 lists jobs that need to be processed for 6
accessing its database. Each job may correspond to one or more 7
instructions of a transaction, independent database action, 8
synchronous action, notification or other operation that is to be 9
performed. The queue prioritizes execution of transactions, 10
independent database action, synchronous actions, and 11
notifications. If the event monitor does not detect an event of 12
interest in one of the transactions being executed, the transaction 13
is received and processed according to a priority established. The 14
queue structures jobs so that the mechanisms server performs 15
different processes while executing transactions. Some of the 16
resources perform processes for executing synchronous actions, 17
notifications, and independent database actions in response to the 18
event monitor identifying events in some or all of the transactions. 19
Other resources execute transactions between multiple clients and 20
the database system. Jain 6:44 – 7:6. 21
Lawson 22
04. Lawson is directed to an event notification system which: (1) 23
allows local event consumers to register for notification of an 24
Appeal 2011-003368
Application 11/176,270

6
event; and (2) sends notification of events that occur to registered 1
local event consumers. Lawson 4:33-37. 2
ANALYSIS 3
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that “if the 4
transaction is a trigger transaction, the database management system 5
executes an action without sending a notification.” App. Br. 13. Appellants 6
admit “Jain could be considered as disclosing receiving an action to be 7
performed, and then executing the action if it can be performed, without 8
sending or receiving a notification.” Id. Appellants ignore the breadth of 9
the term “notification” which encompasses any form of information 10
transmission. Thus the admitted act of receiving an action to be performed 11
is itself a notification. 12
The limitation of “decoupling” is not before us as a contested issue, but 13
in any event is only defined by the subsequent wherein clause of “wherein 14
the at least one action is determined on the basis of the fulfillment level of 15
the at least one event or incident on a second server.” The claim does not 16
limit or otherwise narrow the manner or nature of fulfillment or how it is 17
measured relative to an event or incident. Jain’s queue is essentially a 18
collection of notifications awaiting execution. Thus, the fulfillment of Jain’s 19
triggers is sufficient to fall within the scope of the claim, although this may 20
be unintended. Such a reading of Jain also rebuts Appellants’ arguments 21
regarding teaching away. 22
As to claims 6 and 12, where “the action to be executed is a commission 23
payment effected on the basis of the fulfillment level of the commission 24
case,” while we agree with Appellants that a commission payment that is 25
Appeal 2011-003368
Application 11/176,270

7
executed cannot, by definition, be non-functional, as execution is itself a 1
function, this is harmless error as the point Examiner makes is simply that 2
the practice of paying commissions, documented in texts as far back as the 3
Old Testament, is so notoriously known as to be more than predictable in the 4
context of Brown’s sales. Thus, these claims, merely reciting paying a 5
commission as an example of the type of action envisioned in claim 1, was 6
clearly obvious to one of ordinary skill. 7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 8
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 9
unpatentable over Jain and Lawson is proper. 10
The rejection of claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 11
unpatentable over Jain, Lawson, and Brown is proper. 12
DECISION 13
The rejection of claims 1-16 is affirmed. 14
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 15
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 16
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 17
AFFIRMED 18
19
20
21
22
23
ewh 24