SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2020

14733242 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2020)

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.
14/733,242 06/08/2015 Wulf Kruempelmann 13913-0580001/150034US01 1076
32864 7590 04/01/2020
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
EL-HAGE HASSAN, ABDALLAH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2020 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WULF KRUEMPELMANN
Appeal 2019-005204
Application 14/733,242
Technology Center 3600

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 4–20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to testing a modified enterprise system with
concurrent production use of the enterprise system. Claim 1, reproduced

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAP SE. Appeal
Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-005204
Application 14/733,242

2
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (disputed limitation
italicized):
1. A computer-implemented method for concurrent production
use of an enterprise system and testing of a modified enterprise
system, the method being executed using one or more processors
and comprising:

receiving, by the one or more processors, a test schema
that provides one or more application views to application tables
of production data in a database and defines a user authorization
to access a plurality of objects comprising one or more local
tables in the database and one or more application views, at least
one application view comprising a read-only view;

selectively providing, by the one or more processors, the
one or more local tables in the database based on a data conflict
identification in each local table relative to a respective
production table of the database and, for an identified data
conflict, a comparison of keys of each local table and of the
respective production table, for local test data provided during
execution of the modified enterprise system;

providing, by the one or more processors, one or more
triggers to the at least one application view; and

executing, by the one or more processors, the enterprise
system based on a production database schema and concurrently
executing the modified enterprise system based on the test
database schema without interfering with a use of the production
data in the database by the enterprise system to minimize a
downtime of the production database schema, testing being
performed using the production data in the same database used
by the enterprise system without copying the production data,
and production data that is one or more of written and modified
during testing of the modified enterprise system is stored as test
master data in a test database.
Appeal 2019-005204
Application 14/733,242

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Alpern et al. (US
2008/0098046 A1, published Apr. 24, 2008) (“Alpern”), Leconte et al. (US
9,674,169 B2, issued June 6, 2017) (“Leconte”), and Batten et al. (US
7,480,898 B2, issued Jan. 20, 2009) (“Batten”). Final Act. 4.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Alpern, Leconte, Batten, and
Garofalo et al. (US 2011/0125865 A1, published May 26, 2011)
(“Garofalo”). Final Act. 15.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the cited portions of Alpern, Leconte, and
Batten do not teach or suggest “testing being performed using the production
data in the same database used by the enterprise system without copying the
production data,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14–15. Specifically,
Appellant argues that Batten loads data extracted from a production database
into a test database, “which is different than testing being performed using
the production data in the same database used by the enterprise system
without copying the production data.” Id. Moreover, Appellant argues,
Batten actually teaches the opposite of the claimed “without copying”
feature, because Batten describes a process where, “[i]n order to build a
testbed and load it with data, the data may be copied from one or more
databases within a production server.” Reply Br. 1–2 (quoting Batten,
10:67–11:2).
The Examiner found that Batten teaches the claim 1 limitation “testing
being performed using the production data in the same database used by the
Appeal 2019-005204
Application 14/733,242

4
enterprise system without copying the production data.” Final Act. 7. In
particular, the Examiner states that “Batten is directed to extracting data
from production database systems in order to create a test environment,” and
cites to Batten’s claim 1 for support (id.): “a data modifier configured to
modify data extracted from a production database to mask confidential
information.” Batten, Claim 1. In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that
Batten’s “ability for one or more developers to conduct testing for one or
more programs that access the same database with each test accessing a
different set of data” (Batten, 4:56–59) shows that “work is done in the
database without the need of copying data back and forth from the
database.” Ans. 4–5.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. The Examiner has
not identified disclosure in Batten or the other references that teaches testing
using “production data in the same database used by the enterprise system
without copying the production data,” as recited in claim 1. The fact that
Batten discloses creating multiple test databases so that “one or more
developers” can “conduct testing for one or more programs that access the
same database with each test accessing a different set of data” (Batten, 4:56–
59) does not teach the claimed testing “without copying the production data”
as the Examiner asserts. See Ans. 4–5. Rather, as Appellant points out,
Batten explicitly teaches that test data “may be copied from one or more
databases within a production server.” Reply Br. 1–2 (quoting Batten,
10:67–11:2). The Examiner has not identified an embodiment in Batten
where testing is performed without copying production data, as recited in
claim 1.
Appeal 2019-005204
Application 14/733,242

5
For these reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
that Batten teaches or suggests the disputed limitation, as recited in
independent claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations similar
to the disputed limitation. The Examiner did not find that either Alpern or
Leconte teaches or suggests the disputed limitation missing in Batten.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claims 8 and 15, and the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of
dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20, which stand with the independent
claims from which they depend.
Because it is dispositive that the Examiner has not shown by a
preponderance of evidence that the cited prior art teaches or reasonably
suggests the disputed limitation, we do not address other issues raised by
Appellant’s arguments related to these claims. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet
Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency
is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–20.

Appeal 2019-005204
Application 14/733,242

6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 7, 8,
11, 12, 14,
15, 18, 19
103 Alpern, Leconte,
Batten
1, 4, 5, 7, 8,
11, 12, 14,
15, 18, 19
2, 3, 6, 9, 10,
13, 16, 17,
20
103 Alpern, Leconte,
Batten, Garofalo
2, 3, 6, 9, 10,
13, 16, 17, 20
Overall
Outcome
  1–20

REVERSED