Schmidt, Olaf

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2020

13738686 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 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.
13/738,686 01/10/2013 Olaf Schmidt 22135-0174001/120280us01 8783
32864 7590 01/03/2020
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
FERRER, JEDIDIAH P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2020 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 OLAF SCHMIDT
Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 Olaf Schmidt, appeals
from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 (Final Act. 1). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “[A]pplicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAP SE,
the assignee of all right, title, and interest in the above-referenced
application by way of an assignment recorded on January 22, 2013, at
reel/frame 029668/0564, and change of name recorded on August 26, 2014,
at reel/frame 033625/0223 (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to generating a
notification from a database update. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a
notification from an in-memory database update, the method
comprising:

detecting an in-memory database event that inserts, deletes
or modifies a first record in an in-memory database that
comprises a gateway component comprising a push-
notification sub-framework configured to process the in-
memory database event, the first record comprising an
event type and an identifier of a party associated with the
in-memory database event;

in response to detecting the in-memory database event,
automatically executing a first database trigger comprising
a procedural code for trigger processing, the first database
trigger being associated to the detected in-memory
database event;

identifying a first event definition that is mapped to the
executed first database trigger; and

generating a first notification that corresponds to the
identified first event definition, the first notification being
generated for a lightweight mobile application accessed by
a first subscriber to the identified first event definition, the
first subscriber being different from the party associated
with the in-memory database event.
Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Eberhard
Samu
US 6,212,514 B1
US 6,405,212 B1
Apr. 3, 2001
June 11, 2002
Ovsyannikov US 2006/0190473 A1 Aug. 24, 2006
Huang
Kann
Lakshminarayanan
Palivatkel
US 2011/0276349 A1
US 2012/0023077 A1
US 2013/0085895 A1
US 2014/0188832 A1
Nov. 10, 2011
Jan. 26, 2012
Apr. 4, 2013
July 3, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan, and Palivatkel (Final
Act. 2–17);
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan, Palivatkel, and Huang
(id. at 17– 21);
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan, Palivatkel, and Samu
(id. at 21–22);
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan, Palivatkel, Samu, and
Kann (id. at 22–23);
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan, Palivatkel, and Eberhard (id. at 23–
24).

Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686

4
OPINION
Obviousness: Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20
Appellant contends their invention as recited in claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15,
and 20, is not obvious over Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan, and Palivatkel
(Appeal Br. 15–20).2 More specifically, Appellant argues several limitations
of claim 1, similarly recited in claims 8 and 15, as discussed below.

the first notification being generated for a lightweight mobile application
accessed by a first subscriber to the identified first event definition

The Examiner relies on Ovsyannikov to teach “the first notification
being generated for . . . a first subscriber to the identified first event
definition” and relies on Lakshminarayanan to teach “the first notification
being generated for a lightweight mobile application accessed by a first
subscriber to the identified first event definition” (Final Act. 3–4 (citing
Ovsyannikov ¶¶ 54, 60, 64; Lakshminarayanan ¶ 28)).
In its Appeal Brief, Appellant contends “the client of Ovsyannikov
may change data and receive[] alerts based on rule matching”; however,
according to Appellant, Ovsyannikov fails to teach the recited limitation
(Appeal Br. 17).
The Examiner finds Ovsyannikov teaches “subscribing” to an alert if
an event matches a rule (a client changed data in Purchase Order form 800

2 Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief for the positions of Appellant and the Final Office Action and
Answer for the positions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this Decision. Arguments that
Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)).
Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686

5
of Figure 8) that creates a rule alert, set up earlier (Ans. 4 (citing
Ovsyannikov ¶¶ 27, 64, Figs. 3, 8)). The Examiner determines Ovsyannikov
teaches an “in-memory database trigger that resulted in the recording to the
events table 805 that a record was updated” which is different than the
“alert being sent to the in box table of the client” (Ans. 5; Ovsyannikov Fig.
8). The Examiner further finds Lakshminarayanan teaches “the lightweight
mobile application through ¶ 0028 teaching user computers 105, 110
operating a dedicated application in an embodiment capable of (¶ 0055)
generating TimesTen XLA notification events” (id. at 5).
Appellant, however, argues that “the result of the ‘in-memory
database trigger that resulted in the recording to the events table 805’ is
chronologically first in comparison to the ‘alert being sent to the inbox table
of the client as seen in the last and leftmost arrow of FIG. 8’” (Reply Br. 2).
Thus, according to Appellant, “[t]he Examiner’s argument would allow . . .
any number of intermediate steps/actions to be leveraged as long as
eventually some type of ‘alert’ is generated” ––an “interpretation [that is]
unreasonably broad” (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Ovsyannikov
teaches selecting a field or record to be monitored using a monitoring rule,
which may include “watching whether a value changes, . . . whether it has
been accessed, etc” (Ovsyannikov ¶ 27, Fig. 2; Ans. 4). Ovsyannikov
further teaches creating of “a notification of the communication of the
trigger field” (Ovsyannikov ¶ 54, Fig. 2; Ans. 4).
As more specifically described in Ovsyannikov, “when events occur
. . . alerts will be generated” indicating events have been triggered
(Ovsyannikov ¶ 60). Ovsyannikov discloses when a client changes data in a
Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686

6
file, for example, in a Purchase Order form 800, as shown in Figure 8, an
event will be recorded indicating a record has been updated (id. ¶ 64, Fig. 8).
“If it turns out that the event matches the rule set up earlier (a record in the
table T1 was updated and the field F1 changed its value –– and the filter
matched as well), the alert inbox table of that client may be updated 825”
(id. ¶ 64), i.e., a notification is generated in the alert inbox table, for access
by a first subscriber to the identified first event definition (e.g., the changed
data in the Purchase Order form).
Appellant’s argument that “any number of intermediate steps/actions”
could be “leveraged as long as eventually some type of ‘alert’ is generated”
(Reply Br. 2) is not persuasive. Initially, we note the claim recites a method
“comprising” steps; thus, the claim does not preclude additional steps.
Additionally, we note Ovsyannikov’s “alert” generated for access by the
client “corresponds to the identified first event definition”; therefore, the
“alert” is not “some type of ‘alert’” (see, e.g., Ovsyannikov Claims).
Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us the combination of
Ovsyannikov and Lakshminarayanan fails to teach “the first notification
being generated for a lightweight mobile application accessed by a first
subscriber to the identified first event definition,” as recited in claim 1.

in response to detecting the in-memory database event, automatically
executing a first database trigger comprising a procedural code for trigger
processing, the first database trigger being associated to the detected in-
memory database event
The Examiner finds Ovsyannikov teaches “detecting an in-memory
database event that inserts, deletes or modifies a first record in an in-memory
database” (Final Act. 3). In particular, the Examiner finds:
Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686

7
Ovsyannikov shows in [paragraph 55] receiving notifications
from an in-memory database. These notifications are generated
when database data is modified. Each notification event
identifies the data item that has been updated. As these events
identify updated data items, they are procedural code associated
with the update. As these notifications are generated upon
modification of the database data, this procedural code is for
trigger processing. The update is the detected in-memory
database event
(id. at 25). The Examiner also finds Lakshminarayanan teaches, in response
to notifications received from the in-memory database, a summary process
334 performs updates (id. at 4).
Appellant argues “Lakshminarayanan provides that the summary
process 334 performs these updates in response to notifications received
from the in-memory database [...], which are generated by the TimesTen in-
memory database when database data is modified” (Appeal Br. 18 (citing
Lakshminarayanan, ¶ 55)). According to Appellant, “the updates (such as
inserts, deletes, or modifies) of the summary process of Lakshminarayanan
are performed in response to notifications of the in-memory database
changes” which is “different than and opposite to” the recited limitation of
“executing a first database trigger including a procedural code for trigger
processing, the first database trigger being associated to the detected in-
memory database event, as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15” (id.).
The Examiner finds Lakshminarayanan teaches notifications are sent
to the availability server 324 and in response to receiving these notifications,
the availability server 324 modifies a summary structure 330 (Ans. 6 (citing
Lakshminarayanan ¶ 39)). Thus, according to the Examiner, the detected in-
memory database event is the changing of the summary data which then
sends a notification from the in-memory database 370 to the availability
Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686

8
server 326 (id.). Moreover, the Examiner determines “the notifications of
Lakshminarayanan are the ‘detecting’ that is being performed as an action
occurs automatically after receipt” (id.).
In response, Appellant argues Lakshminarayanan teaches “the
summary process 334 performs these updates in response to notifications
received from the in-memory database [...], which are generated by the
TimesTen in-memory database when database data is modified” (Reply Br.
3 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Lakshminarayanan ¶ 55)). Thus, according to
Appellant,
the updates (such as inserts, deletes, or modifies) of the
summary process of Lakshminarayanan are performed in
response to notifications of the in-memory database changes,
which is different than, and opposite to, in response to detecting
the in-memory database event [that inserts, deletes, or modifies
a first record in an in-memory database], automatically executing
a first database trigger including a procedural code for trigger
processing, the first database trigger being associated to the
detected in-memory database event, as recited in claims 1, 8, and
15
(id. (alteration in original)).
Lakshminarayanan describes “updates [are] made by the scheduling
servers 344 to the summary data 374” in the in-memory database server 370
(Lakshminarayanan ¶ 55; Fig. 4). To reflect those updates made, “a
summary process 334 in the availability server 326 updates the summary
structure 330” (id.). “The summary process 334 performs these updates in
response to notification received from the in-memory database” (id.). Thus,
Lakshminarayanan teaches when an update is made in the summary data of
the in-memory database server (an in-memory database event), a notification
is sent to the summary process (a first database trigger). Accordingly, we
Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686

9
are not persuaded Lakshminarayanan fails to teach “in response to detecting
the in-memory database event, automatically executing a first database
trigger comprising a procedural code for trigger processing, the first
database trigger being associated to the detected in-memory database event,”
as recited in claim 1.

a first record . . . , the first record comprising an event type and an identifier
of a party associated with the in-memory database event . . . [and] a first
subscriber . . . , the first subscriber being different from the party associated
with the in-memory database event
The Examiner finds Palivatkel teaches every change on tables 323,
324, 326 is recorded, the recorded change 330 is checked, and the
subscribers to be notified are determined and sent appropriate data (Final
Act. 5–6 (citing Palivatkel ¶¶ 12, 42–50)). The Examiner further finds
Palivatkel teaches a notification system wherein every change occurring on a
backend system is propagated to a search engine (Final Act. 6 (citing
Palivatkel ¶¶ 6–12)).
Appellant contends “Palivatkel provides that AN 322 checks the
recorded change 330 and determines which subscribers (machines) need to
be notified, and sends the appropriate data to the subscribers 331” (Appeal
Br. 18). Thus, according to Appellant, “the recorded change 330 of
Palivatkel can include the change and indicate the subscriber”; however,
Palivatkel does not teach “the first record including an event type and an
identifier of a party associated with the in-memory database event, as recited
in claims 1, 8, and 15” (id. at 18–19).
Initially, we note “an identifier of a party associated with the in-
memory database event” is non-functional descriptive material because it
Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686

10
merely labels the data and does not further limit the claimed invention
functionally. Indeed, the “identifier of a party associated with the in-
memory database event” is merely data stored in a record and is not used in
this claim or any dependent claim functionally. Such non-functional
descriptive material does not patentably distinguish over prior art that
otherwise renders the claims unpatentable (see In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,
1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir.
1983): Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887–90 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential) (discussing non-functional descriptive material)).
Furthermore, we are not persuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan could not
have determined what information to store in the first record. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.

a lightweight mobile application accessed by a first subscriber to the
identified first event definition
Appellant argues Palivatkel fails to teach this limitation (Appeal Br.
19; Reply Br. 5–6). The Examiner, however, relies on Ovsyannikov and
Lakshminarayanan to teach this limitation (Final Act. 3–4). Accordingly,
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive.

Conclusion
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan, and Palivatkel
teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious the limitations as recited in
independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and dependent claims 7, 14, and 20, not
separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 14,
Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686

11
15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan, and Palivatkel.

Obviousness: Dependent Claims 2–6, 9–13, and 16–19
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16,
and 17; claims 4, 11, and 18; claims 5, 12, and 19; and claims 6 and 13, is
not obvious over Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan, Palivatkel, and Huang;
Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan, Palivatkel, and Samu; Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan,Palivatkel, Samu, and Kann; and Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan,Palivatkel, and Eberhar based on the arguments set forth
for independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Appeal Br. 20). For the reasons set
forth above, these dependent claims fall with their respective independent
claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17;
claims 4, 11, and 18; claims 5, 12, and 19; and claims 6 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan,
and Palivatkel; Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan, Palivatkel, and Huang;
Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan, Palivatkel, and Samu; Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan,Palivatkel, Samu, and Kann; and Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan,Palivatkel, and Eberhar.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
More specifically,
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 under pre–
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan, and Palivatkel is affirmed;
Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686

12
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 under pre–
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan, Palivatkel, and Huang is affirmed;
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 4, 11, and 18 under pre–AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan,
Palivatkel, and Samu is affirmed;
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, 12, and 19 under pre–AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan,Palivatkel, Samu, and Kann is affirmed; and
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 and 13 under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ovsyannikov, Lakshminarayanan,Palivatkel,
and Eberhard is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 8,
14, 15,
20
103 Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan, Palivatkel
1, 7, 8,
14, 15, 20

2, 3, 9,
10, 16,
17
103 Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan,
Palivatkel, Huang
2, 3, 9,
10, 16, 17

4, 11, 18 103 Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan,
Palivatkel, Samu
4, 11, 18
5, 12, 19 103 Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan,Palivatkel,
Samu, Kann
5, 12, 19
6, 13 103 Ovsyannikov,
Lakshminarayanan,Palivatkel,
Eberhard
6, 13
Appeal 2019-000332
Application 13/738,686

13
Overall
Outcome
1–20
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)).
AFFIRMED