SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2021

2020003075 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 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.
13/834,098 03/15/2013 Roger Knop 2058.815US1 5875
50400 7590 10/21/2021
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
HTAY, LIN LIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2021 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROGER KNOP
Appeal 2020-003075
Application 13/834,098
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–9, and 11–20, constituting all
pending claims in the application. Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed November 12,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”) and Reply Brief filed March 17, 2020 (“Reply Br.”);
the Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action mailed June 14, 2019 (“Non-Final
Act.”) and Answer mailed February 20, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Specification
filed March 15, 2013 (“Spec.”). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings
and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents.
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAP SE. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003075
Application 13/834,098

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to “software providing augmenting middleware
communication services.” Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
1. A method of interfacing a backend system application to a
mobile device application comprising:
receiving a service call to the backend system application
from a middleware object in communication with the mobile
device application, the service call including a request for data;
with regard to the data request, identifying data to be
included in a first transport data structure provided in response
to the data request based on the middleware object from which
the service call was received and configuration data retrieved
from a database table identifying data items that are active and
inactive with regard to the middleware object, an active data item
being a data item the middleware object is capable of processing
and an inactive data item being a data item the middleware object
is not capable of processing;
retrieving the identified data; and
calling a data transport process to build the first transport
data structure containing the retrieved data and to transmit the
first transport data structure to the middleware object.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Jaramillo et al. (“Jaramillo.”) US 2002/0196741 A1 Dec. 26, 2002
Pizzorni et al. (“Pizzorni.”) US 2013/0091252 A1 Apr. 11, 2013
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–9, and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Pizzorni and Jaramillo.
Non-Final Act. 3–23.
Appeal 2020-003075
Application 13/834,098

3
ISSUE
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of references
teaches or suggests the step of
identifying data to be included in a first transport data structure
provided in response to the data request based on the middleware
object from which the service call was received and
configuration data retrieved from a database table identifying
data items that are active and inactive with regard to the
middleware object, an active data item being a data item the
middleware object is capable of processing and an inactive data
item being a data item the middleware object is not capable of
processing,
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings
of Pizzorni and Jaramillo. Non-Final Act. 3–7. The Examiner relies upon
Pizzorni’s disclosure of distributing an asset to a multi-tiered network node
for teaching many of the limitations of claim 1. Id. at 3–5 (citing Pizzorni
¶¶ 394, 495, 515, 522, 529, 533, 539, 574, 581–582, 609–610; claim 17).
However, the Examiner finds Pizzorni does not explicitly disclose the
limitations of (1) configuration data retrieved from a database table
identifying data items that are active and inactive with regard to the
middleware object, an active data item being a data item the middleware
object is capable of processing and an inactive data item being a data item
the middleware object is not capable of processing, and (2) retrieving the
identified data as recited by claim 1. Id. at 5.
Addressing the noted deficiency of Pizzorni, the Examiner finds
Jaramillo’s disclosure of event and message registration by an association
Appeal 2020-003075
Application 13/834,098

4
controller teaches or suggests the identified limitations. Id. at 5–7 (citing
Jaramillo ¶¶ 42, 57–58, 69, 94–95, 97, 99, 102, 116, 122, 131–132, Figs. 1,
9). According to the Examiner “[a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to incorporate [the] method for event and message registration by
an association controller (AC) taught by Jaramillo in the Pizzorni system to
efficiently provide requested data.” Id. at 7.
Appellant contends that, inter alia, “contrary to the Examiner’s
assertion, Jaramillo fails to teach or suggest identifying any data item based
on ‘configuration data retrieved from a database table identifying data items
that are active and inactive with regard to the middleware object,’ as recited
by claim 1.” Appeal Br. 15. In particular, Appellant contends:
The Examiner asserts that the recited “identifying data to
be included in a first transport data structure . . . based on . . .
configuration data” is met by Jaramillo’s “Service Classification
Tables.” See 6/14/19 Office Action at p. 5. This is a
misconstruction of Jaramillo.
Jaramillo’s Service Classification Tables are nothing more
than a listing of classification categories that can be used by the
[Automatic Service Classification (ASC)] to classify a service.
See Jaramillo at ¶¶ 57–58. These classification categories, as the
Examiner points out, include Service Privacy, Remote Use,
Shared Resource/Data, etc. See Jaramillo at ¶¶ 57–58, 6/14/19
Office Action at p. 5. Categories for classifying a
communication service do not identify “data items that are
active or inactive with regard to [a] middleware object.”
A communication service is not a data item. Jaramillo’s
categories are for describing a completely different kind
of thing than what is recited by claim 1 (e.g., a “data item”
versus a “service.”).
Also, the categories for classifying Jaramillo’s
communication services do not indicate whether anything
is “active or inactive with regard to a middleware object.”
Appeal 2020-003075
Application 13/834,098

5
Id.
In response, the Examiner finds, “Jaramillo[’s] Service Classification
Table and paragraphs [0057]–[0058] teach identification of service
(analogous to data item(s)) capabilities, classification, such as service
privacy, remote use, shared resource/data, etc.” Ans. 4.
In reply, Appellant contends:
The Examiner provides no justification for this analogy and,
indeed, the Examiner’s analogy does not hold. In Jaramillo,
services are actors, defined in terms of what the services do.
For example, Jaramillo describes communications services that
provide voice telephony, provide Instant Messaging, and provide
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). See Jaramillo at ¶ 3. On the
other hand, the recited data items are the objects of an actor.
That is, the recited data items are described in terms of what
something else can or cannot do to the data items (e.g., whether
a particular middleware object is or is not capable of processing
a data item). One having ordinary skill in the art would not find
it obvious to treat Jaramillo’s service (e.g., described in terms of
what it does) as analogous to a data item (described in claim 1 in
terms of what another thing can do to the data item).
Reply Br. 2.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions because the Examiner
fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to show either that (i) the
data of claim 1 is properly construed to include Jaramillo’s service or
(ii) Jaramillo’s service teaches or suggests the data of claim 1. Instead, the
Examiner merely asserts, without explanation, that Jaramillo’s service is
analogous to a data item. Ans. 4.
Addressing the term “data,” we interpret claim terms using “the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
Appeal 2020-003075
Application 13/834,098

6
afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The
broadest reasonable interpretation is assessed from the perspective of a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Am. Acad.,
367 F.3d at 1364. In determining the broadest reasonable interpretation, it
can be appropriate to consult a dictionary definition for guidance.
Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062–63 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appellant’s Specification does not provide a definition of what is
meant by data. However, the Specification uses both the terms “data” and
“services” separately, not interchangeably, thereby distinguishing between
the two, rather than suggesting their equivalency. For example, the
Specification discloses “backend system 102 . . . typically includes a
database 106 that stores application 104 data” and “may further include
augmenting middleware communication services 110 [which, in some
embodiments,] are configurable software modules or services within the
application 104.” Spec. ¶¶ 17–18. Similarly, claim 1 uses the terms
separately, reciting “the service call including a request for data” thereby
also distinguishing one term from the other. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.)
see Inova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d
1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[W]hen an applicant uses different terms in a
claim it is permissible to infer that he intended his choice of different terms
to reflect a differentiation in the meaning of those terms.”).
Extrinsic evidence further supports Appellant’s argument that a
communication service is not a data item. Appeal Br. 15. In particular, an
Appeal 2020-003075
Application 13/834,098

7
accepted dictionary definition of data is “an item of information,” 3 and a
service is “[i]n reference to programming and software, a program or routine
that provides support to other programs, particularly at a low (close to the
hardware) level.”4 Again, the two terms are not equivalent.
Thus, we understand the term “data,” as used in claim 1, does not
include a service. Therefore, the Examiner errs in broadly interpreting the
term “data” as encompassing Jaramillo’s service. On this record, we also
are not persuaded that Jaramillo’s service teaches data. Although
Jaramillo’s service may use or act on data, the Examiner fails to provide
sufficient evidence or reasoning to persuade us that Jaramillo’s service is
limited to or otherwise is understood to teach data, as recited by claim 1.
Because we agree with at least one of the Appellant’s contentions of
error, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other contentions.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1,
or the rejection of independent claims 8 and 15, which include language
similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. Nor do we sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 2, 4–7, 9, 11–14, and 16–20, each of which stands with
its respective base claim.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–9, and 11–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of
Pizzorni and Jaramillo.

3 MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 141 (5th ed. 2002).
4 Id. at 475.
Appeal 2020-003075
Application 13/834,098

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–9,
11–20
103(a) Pizzorni, Jaramillo 1, 2, 4–9,
11–20
REVERSED