SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2021

2020005601 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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.
15/155,416 05/16/2016 Dave Schikora 22135-0927001/151036US01 7348
32864 7590 12/30/2021
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
CHAUDHURI, ANITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2021 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 DAVE SCHIKORA, OLE LILIENTHAL,
MICHAEL BURWIG, PIT HUMKE,
LEIF JENSEN-PISTORIUS, PEER HILGERS,
MARTIN WEZOWSKI and THOMAS SPANGEMACHER
___________

Appeal 2020-005601
Application 15/155,416
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JAMES B. ARPIN and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 14. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are
independent. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 10, 2020), the
Final Action (mailed September 12, 2019) and the Answer (mailed April 14,
2020), for the respective details.
2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (“The
word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the
joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in
Appeal 2020-005601
Application 15/155,416

2

We reverse.
Introduction
According to Appellant:
An organization may employ various computing systems,
including hardware and software components, to conduct
activities associated with the organization. Traditionally, such
systems are configured to support an activity in a static, not
readily configurable manner. For example, particular activities
may be coded into the logic of the software executed by a
computing system, and may not readily be altered without
extensive recoding. Individuals within the organization may act
as data providers to feed information into systems. However,
traditional systems may lack flexibility to enable different
individuals to approach an organizational activity differently,
given the static configuration of the systems.
Specification ¶ 2.
Implementations of the present disclosure are directed to
systems, devices, methods, and computer-readable media for
providing normalized object exposure in a collaborative
platform. Implementations provide a collaborative platform to
enable multiple users within an organization to collaborate to
address an issue collectively – e.g., plan a process, solve a
problem, and/or perform some other activity.
Specification ¶ 21.
Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A computer-implemented method performed by at least
one processor, the method comprising:

§§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies SAP SE as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief 4.
3 Appellant does not argue independent claim 8 or 15 individually. See
Appeal Brief 20 (“Independent claims 8 and 15 each recite analogous,
Appeal 2020-005601
Application 15/155,416

3

determining, by the at least one processor, one or more
normalized data objects and one or more normalized tool
objects for consumption in an application executed by the at
least one processor, wherein the one or more normalized data
objects and the one or more normalized tool objects comply
with a normalized object contract, wherein the normalized
object contract specifies one or more perspectives that are
supported by each of the one or more normalized data objects
and by each of the one or more normalized tool objects,
wherein each of the one or more perspectives provides access
to a corresponding set of data attributes of the one or more
normalized data objects and a corresponding set of tools of the
one or more normalized data objects, wherein each of the tools
is configured to consume at least one of the one or more
normalized data objects, wherein each of the one or more
perspectives corresponds to a different set of data attributes, and
wherein the one or more perspectives contain one or more
mandatory perspective and one or more optional perspectives;
and
determining, by the at least one processor, for each of the
one or more normalized data objects and each of the one or
more normalized tool objects, a respective perspective of the
one or more perspectives that is supported by the respective
object; and
employing, by the at least one processor, the respective
perspective to present, in a user interface (UI) of the
application: i) the set of data attributes that correspond to the
determined perspective for each of the one or more normalized

though not identical, features as independent claim 1, and each distinguish
over the cited references for similar reasons. Accordingly, Appellant
respectfully requests reconsideration and favorable action with regard to
independent claims 8 and 15, and all of their respective dependent claims.”).
Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground
of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may
select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal
as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the
basis of the selected claim alone.”).
Appeal 2020-005601
Application 15/155,416

4

data objects, and ii) the set of tools that correspond to the
determined perspective for each of the one or more normalized
tool objects.

References
Name4 Reference Date
Broker US 2006/0179035 A1 August 10, 2006
Breitenstein US 2011/0077958 A1 March 31, 2011
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Broker and Breitenstein. Final Action 2–6.
ANALYSIS
Appellant states in the Specification that:
[I]n traditional systems data binding may be performed for each
type of object that may be touched during execution of an
application, as described further below. For example, one object
might expose the two fields “First Name” and “Last Name”
whereas a similar, yet different object might have “First Name”
and “Family Name.” The semantic mapping of fields to the
frontend application may consume a significant portion of the
overall development cost of a project in a traditional software
development setting.
Specification ¶ 9.
Appellant further states that according to the claimed invention,
“objects may be normalized through use of a normalized object contract”
and “[t]hrough the contract, objects may exhibit a shared common state,

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-005601
Application 15/155,416

5

such that multiple users and/or processes access the same state for a
particular object at any given time.” Specification ¶ 21; see claim 1.
Broker discloses, “methods and systems may normalize the result
objects based on metadata associated with generic attributes related to each
object type. Based on the normalization, guided navigation results are
generated across the different object types of the result objects.” Broker,
Abstract. The Examiner finds Broker teaches the claimed invention with the
exception that “Broker hinted on tool objects at least in figure[s] 7-8 but
does not explicitly use the term ‘tool.”’ Final Action 3. The Examiner relies
upon Breitenstein to address Broker’s noted deficiency, “Breitenstein
discloses one or more normalized tool objects [0053; 0054].” Final Action
3.
Broker further discloses, “[o]nce the search result is generated, search
engine 110 may normalize the result across different object types (Step 430).
Normalizing the search result enables search engine 110 to process the
different object types included in the result list to provide guided navigation
for the user.” Broker ¶ 59; see Final Action 3. Appellant contends, “Broker
merely show a search engine ‘normaliz[ing] [search] result[s] across
different object types.’ (Broker paragraph [0059] emphasis added). In
contrast to the normalized search results, claim 1 recites a ‘normalized data
object[s] [that] compl[ies] with a normalized object contract.”’ Appeal
Brief 15–16 (alterations in original) (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues,
“that the normalized search results described in the cited portions of Broker
have not been shown to teach or suggest at least normalized data objects
and a normalized object contract as recited in independent claim 1.”
Appeal 2020-005601
Application 15/155,416

6

Appeal Brief 16. We agree with Appellant and are persuaded of Examiner
error.
Although the Examiner cited Broker ¶ 51 and Table I as teaching the
recited object contract (see Answer 4), the Examiner does not provide any
explanation or reasoning for why the object mappings depicted in Table I
can be considered an “object contract” within the meaning of claim 1.
While Breitenstein discloses, “the platform 100 may comprise tools for
analysis and data presentation and reporting,” Breitenstein fails to address
Broker’s noted deficiency. Breitenstein ¶ 53; see Final Action 3.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner obviousness rejection of claim 1, as
well as independent claims 8 and 15, commensurate in scope, along with
dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20.
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Broker, Breitenstein 1–20

REVERSED