SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 20, 2021

2020004855 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2021)

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.
16/125,256 09/07/2018 Harish Mehta 22135-0889002/150181US02 5273
32864 7590 10/20/2021
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
BAYOU, YONAS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2021 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 HARISH MEHTA, HARTWIG SEIFERT, THOMAS KUNZ,
ANNE JACOBI, MARCO RODECK, FLORIAN KRAEMER,
BJOERN BRENCHER, and NAN ZHANG
Appeal 2020-004855
Application 16/125,256
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and SCOTT RAEVSKY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20, all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers 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 2020-004855
Application 16/125,256

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to transferring master data in a backend computer
system. Spec., Abstr. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
executing, by a computer, a transfer of master data in a
backend computing system, wherein the master data includes
user data and system data, and wherein the transfer of master
data comprises:
receiving, by the computer and from a user
management system or an identity management system,
user data associated with a particular user id in the
backend computing system;
transferring, by the computer, the received user
data to an event stream processor (ESP);
receiving, by the computer, system data associated
with a particular log providing computing system in the
backend computing system; and
after transferring the received user data to the ESP,
transferring, by the computer, the received system data to
the ESP; and
after executing the transfer of master data, executing, by
the computer, a transfer of log data associated with logs of
computing systems connected to the backend computing
system, wherein one or more log entries of the transferred log
data are enriched to include the particular user id, and the
enriched one or more log entries are stored in a threat detection
system and used by the threat detection system to identify one
or more security threats associated with the computing systems.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name Reference Date
Claes US 2015/0237057 A1 Aug. 20, 2015
Paithane US 10,033,747 B1 July 24, 2018
Appeal 2020-004855
Application 16/125,256

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–20 103 Claes, Paithane
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the combination of Claes and Paithane fails to
teach or suggest the following limitations from claim 1:
transferring, by the computer, the received user
data to an event stream processor (ESP); [and]
after transferring the received user data to the ESP,
transferring, by the computer, the received system data to
the ESP[.]
Appeal Br. 13–16. We focus on the event stream processor (ESP) element
recited in both limitations. For these limitations, the Examiner finds that
Claes’ “client application 9” corresponds to the claimed ESP for the
“transferring” limitation and finds that Claes’ admin. tool 7 corresponds to
the claimed ESP for the “after transferring” limitation. Non-Final Act. 5;
Ans. 11.
Appellant contends that the Examiner improperly applies disparate
teachings of Claes to the claimed ESP. Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant
contends that both Claes’s client application 9 and admin tool 7 cannot be
mapped to the claimed ESP because each has different functionality, and “in
light of Appellant’s claim language/antecedent basis and specification, the
[claimed] ESP is shown to be the same element.” Id. at 16. Appellant
further contends that neither Claes’s “‘client application 9’ nor ‘admin. tool
7’ has both user data and then system data transferred to it.” Id.
Appeal 2020-004855
Application 16/125,256

4
The Examiner responds by finding that under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, “‘client application 9’ of computer system 8 and ‘admin[.]
tool 7’ of computer system 6 in [F]ig. 1 [of Claes]” are considered “as a
processor core of the computer system which corresponds to the claimed
Event Stream Processor (ESP).” Ans. 11.
In Reply, Appellant contends that the client application 9 and admin
tool 7 “are two different applications, each executing on different and
separate computer systems,” and thus cannot simultaneously be the same
“processor core of the computer system,” as asserted by the Examiner.
Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further asserts that the
Examiner’s Answer does not show that any communication takes place
between client application 9 and admin tool 7. Id. We agree with Appellant.
The two applications 7, 9 the Examiner relies on for the claimed ESP
are described in Claes as separate computer systems: “As shown in FIG. 1,
the computer network infrastructure comprises by way of example three
computer systems, namely a first computer system 1, a client computer
system 8, and an administrator computer system 6.” Claes ¶ 62. Claes’s
Figure 1 also depicts the client application 9 as part of a separate computer
system (8) from the computer system (6) that implements the admin tool 7.
Id., Fig. 1. Thus, Claes does not support the Examiner’s interpretation that
two separate computer systems constitute the same event stream processor.
See In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (The
“correct inquiry” is to give a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, not
the “broadest possible interpretation.”).
The Examiner does not rely on any of the other cited references to
teach this element. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
Appeal 2020-004855
Application 16/125,256

5
of claim 1 and similar claims 8 and 15 and of their dependent claims. We do
not reach Appellant’s further allegations of error because we find the issue
discussed above to be dispositive of the rejection of all the pending claims.2
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Claes, Paithane 1–20
REVERSED

2 Our decision addresses only the rejection before us and does not opine as
to the patentability of the pending claims. On remand, the Examiner should
reconsider whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See, e.g., In re Salwan, 681 F. App’x. 938, 941
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding abstract a claim that recited “storing,
communicating, transferring, and reporting” data (emphasis added)).