SAP SEDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 30, 20212020005601 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation