Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbHDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 15, 20212021000061 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 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. 14/251,878 04/14/2014 Stefan Andreas Blumer TRTA(CSS)-018-US 7679 90879 7590 04/15/2021 Thomson Reuters c/o Intellectual Property 3 Times Square New York, NY 10036 EXAMINER SHEIKH, ASFAND M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/15/2021 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): IPDocketing@clarivate.com IPDocketing@thomsonreuters.com docketing@thomsonreuters.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEFAN ANDREAS BLUMER, JENNIFER HUNSICKER, NEELIMA KASA, RICHARD ALLEN PADUR, and JACOB LAUX TABER ____________ Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Stefan Andreas Blumer, Jennifer Hunsicker, Neelima Kasa, Richard Allen Padur, and Jacob Laux Taber (Appellant2) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 12, and 13, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellant invented a way to perform flexible field mapping between disparate systems, by abstracting the hierarchical structure of the data in the disparate systems for calculating one or more tax values responsive to the combined request based on the one or more data items. Specification paras. 6–8. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A computer-implemented method for flexible field mapping, the method comprising: [1] receiving a transaction request associated with a source data object having one or more source data fields, wherein the one or more source data fields specify specific fields within the source data object to be mapped in order to execute the transaction request; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed April 20, 2020) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 17, 2020), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 19, 2019). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 3 [2] identifying a base mapping between the source data object having one or more source data fields and a target data object having one or more target data fields, wherein the source data object is located in a first system and the target data object is located in a second system; [3] generating a base mapping request, the base mapping request comprising the identified base mapping between the source data object having one or more source data fields and the target data object having one or more target data fields; [4] generating a field mapping request, the field mapping request comprising a field mapping between a given source data field and a given target data field, the given source data field being a specific field within the source data object to be mapped in order to execute the transaction request; [5] identifying one or more data items from the target data object responsive to the base mapping request and the field mapping request; [6] generating a combined request based on the base mapping request and the field mapping request, the combined request comprising the one or more data items responsive to the base mapping request and the field mapping request, said one or more data items comprising one or more tax rates; [7] automatically structuring applicable source code stored in a mapping database into an automatically generated computer code request for each of the base mapping request, the field mapping request, and the combined mapping request, wherein each of the base mapping request, the field mapping request, and the combined mapping request comprise the corresponding automatically generated computer code request, Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 4 wherein the automatically generated computer code of the base mapping request comprises mapping instructions for mapping the source data object to the target data object, wherein the automatically generated computer code of the field mapping request comprises mapping instructions for mapping the given source data field to the given target data field, and wherein the automatically generated computer code of the combined mapping request comprises instructions for executing at least a portion of the requested transaction based on the one or more data items identified from the target data object responsive to the base mapping request and the field mapping request; [8] transmitting the combined request to a target memory [;]3 [9] calculating one or more tax values responsive to the combined request based on the one or more data items; [10] transmitting the one or more tax values responsive to the combined request to a source memory; and [11] storing the one or more tax values responsive to the combined request in the source data object maintained in the source memory. 3 The amendment filed March 19, 2019 deleted a period, but did not insert replacement punctuation such as a semicolon. The intent, based on the paragraphing of claim 1, originally filed claim 2, and Appellant’s arguments in the Brief appears to be that the following limitation 9 is separate from limitation 8 and not meant to be part of limitation 8, suggesting this omission of punctuation is an oversight. We interpret the claim as including a semicolon at this position to separate limitations 8 and 9. Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 5 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Lindsay US 6,694,338 B1 Feb. 17, 2004 Weedon US 7,681,184 B1 Mar. 16, 2010 Bross US 2005/0055290 A1 Mar. 10, 2005 Harken US 2005/0251533 A1 Oct. 10, 2005 Talan US 2008/0147528 A1 June 19, 2008 Claims 1, 5, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, and Weedon. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, Weedon, and Official Notice. ISSUES The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes calculating tax values. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Talan 01. Talan is directed to automatically inserting account data into a tax form. Talan para. 3. 02. Talan describes a mapping system that accepts chart of accounts and tax-forms as input and then identifies key data-elements associated with chart of account and tax-forms. Next, the Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 6 mapping system identifies a data-map that maps the account-data to tax-forms and is associated with the key data-elements. Then, mapping system applies this data-map to chart of accounts and tax-forms to create completed tax-forms. Talan para. 37. 03. Talan describes a mapping system that applies the data-map to the account-data to produce completed tax-forms by inserting the account-data into tax-forms using the data-map. Talan para. 42. 04. Talan describes a mapping system that combines subsets of the account-data by applying mathematical operations to the subsets of account-data, for example by adding wages paid to full-time employees and wages paid to part-time employees together and inserting the result into tax-forms. Talan para. 46. Bross 05. Bross is directed to processing information in transaction-tax- related applications. Bross para. 1. 06. Bross describes completing missing data needed in a transaction- tax-related application, using completing rules which define, depending on which missing data needs to be completed, what further data might be considered for deriving the missing data. It does this by receiving a completing request; evaluating at least one completing rule associated with a missing data while using the further data defined as within this completing rule, and returning the completed data if it could be derived from the further data. Bross para. 8. Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 7 07. Bross describes the general requirements for a transaction tax processing system as including calculating the transaction tax. Bross para. 34. 08. Bross describes a calculation request that initiates the transaction tax calculation and calculates the transaction tax on the basis of the parameters received from the calculation request. Bross para. 53. 09. Bross describes rules requested for a specific transaction tax calculation as being transmitted from a content service to the calculation service. Bross para. 55. 10. Bross describes mapping the parameters delivered in a request into the data format and model internally used by the transaction tax (TT) calculation system. If numerous different external applications all having different output parameters (data elements “net price,” “tax rate,” etc.) used the basic and micro services, a corresponding number of different data mapping micro services would have to be invoked by the OT calculation service 24 for proper communication with these applications. Bross para. 71. 11. Bross describes the data model used for communication between external applications and basic and micro services as well as between different basic and micro services being standardized, and is referred to as a tax object. The use of a standardized data model eliminates the need for complicated interface structures since now each interface only needs to implement a data mapping of the internally used data model to the standardized data model and vice versa. In other words, each service only receives data Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 8 implemented in the standardized data model object irrespective of the application sending these data and, in turn, delivers only data in the standardized data model to any other application/service. Bross para. 72. Lindsay 12. Lindsay is directed to representation and translation of electronic documents. Lindsay 1:5–6. 13. Lindsay describes a MapTo code that, given the value of the virtual field, populates the ParticipatingFields and a MapFrom code that, given the ParticipatingFields, produces the value of the virtual aggregate field. Lindsay 3:14–17. 14. Lindsay describes mapping from location(s) in the source document to a virtual aggregate field in the target document. A virtual aggregate field in a target document is treated just like any other field. Whatever operations--move, or any other manipulation rule that might be applied to other fields--apply to virtual aggregate fields. Lindsay 3:22–28. 15. Lindsay describes a virtual field that corresponds to a field in the source and target groups being used to capture common abstractions using meta-data. For example, meta-data associated with the source document can be used by the mapping engine to define one or more aggregate virtual fields. After the aggregate virtual fields are defined, the mapping engine applies mapping rules to the meta-data associated with the source group, including the aggregate virtual fields, to automatically generate a transform. The transform is then provided to the translation engine, which Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 9 uses the transform to convert the source document into the target document. Lindsay 5:39–53. Harken 16. Harken is directed to integration processes. Harken para. 26. 17. Harken describes the source data integration job having a source native format, and the target data integration job having a target native format. Harken para. 34. Weedon 18. Weedon is directed to cross language type system compatibility. Weedon 1:22–24. 19. Weedon claim 1 recites A system for translation of data types between a first application in a first language and a second application in a second language, the system comprising: a computer having at least one processor and a memory configured to generate: a formal mapping between data types of the first language and data types of the second language; translators for translating data types between the first language and the second language based on the formal mapping; a translation mapping to the translators based on actual data types of the first application and formal data types of the second application; and a module for automatically selecting an appropriate translator for translating between a particular data type in the first language and a data types in the second language based on the translation mapping in response to invocation of a method of the first application with the particular data type, wherein the module for selecting the appropriate translator is configured to perform at least a two-level lookup in the translation mapping to select the appropriate translator, wherein a first level of the two-level lookup includes a lookup of a full inheritance hierarchy of the actual type to determine a candidate set of translators and, wherein a second level lookup of the two-level lookup Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 10 includes a lookup based on a formal data type of the second application and selection of an appropriate translator from the candidate set of translators determined by the first level of the two-level lookup. Weedon Claim 1. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 5, and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103as unpatentable over Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, and Weedon We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the application of applying a data map to a tax form, according to Talan, simply involves inserting account-data in a tax. Insertion of account data into a form is not the same claimed calculation of a tax value. The Examiner further relies on Talan’s discussion of “ ... applying the data-map can involve performing an operation on the account-data.” However, performing an operation as discussed in Talan is limited to “... applying mathematical operations to the subsets of account-data. For example, mapping system 230 may add wages paid to full-time employees and wages paid to part-time employees together and then may insert the result into tax-forms 220.” Performing a mathematical operation on account-data, however, is not the same as calculating a tax value based on translated tax rates obtained from a separate electronic system. Accordingly, Appellants submit that Talan, as well as the remaining prior art of record, fails to teach or suggest and is otherwise silent with regard to “calculating one or more tax values responsive to the combined request based on the one or more data items” where the one or more data items comprise “one or more tax rates” as recited in independent claims 1, 5 and 9. Appeal Br. 9 (citations omitted). As the Examiner responds Talan discloses the mapping system applies the data-map to the account-data to produce completed tax-forms. The [Examiner] further notes Talan discloses in one embodiment of the present invention, applying the data-map can involve performing an operation on the account-data. These operations can include Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 11 combining subsets of the account-data by applying mathematical operations to the subsets of account-data. The examiner notes the producing a completed tax-form involves applying mathematical operations to the subsets of account-data, which reads on calculating one or more tax values responsive to the combined request based on the one or more data items, as wages paid to full-time employees and part-time employees would incur different tax calculations in order to produce a completed tax form. Nonetheless, Bross was shown to teach said one or more data items comprise one or more tax rates and calculating one or more tax values responsive ... to the one or more data item, as Bross states: If numerous different external applications all having different output parameters (data elements “net price”, “tax rate”, etc.) used the basic and micro services, a corresponding number of different data mapping micro services would have to be invoked by the OT calculation service 24 for proper communication with these applications. Therefore the examiner notes the combination of Talan in view of Bross, in combination [sic], make[s] it clear that the cited references calculating one or more tax values responsive to the combined request based on the one or more data items Ans. 3–4 (citations omitted). The limitation at issue is “calculating one or more tax values responsive to the combined request based on the one or more data items.” Claim 1, limitation 9. The one or more data items include a tax rate. Claim 1 limitations 5 and 6. Both Talan and Bross describe performing calculations in a tax system. Bross in particular computes transaction taxes, which by definition generally are based on transaction tax rates. As the Examiner determines, Bross even explicitly describes outputting tax rates in a data mapping for a tax calculation. See above. It is difficult to imagine a tax system that would not perform calculations based on tax rates, so this is also at least predictable to one of ordinary skill. Appellant presents no other arguments. Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 12 Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, Weedon, and Official Notice This rejection is not separately argued. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, and Weedon is proper. The rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, Weedon, and Official Notice is proper. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 12, and 13 is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 9 103 Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, Weedon 1, 5, 9 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13 103 Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, Weedon, Official Notice 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13 Overall Outcome 1, 3–5, 7–9, 12, 13 Appeal 2021-000061 Application 14/251,878 13 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) (2011). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation