Veeva Systems Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2021

2019006324 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 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.
15/228,968 08/04/2016 Peter Gassner V0024 8554
125563 7590 02/26/2021
Veeva Systems Inc.
4280 Hacienda Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
EXAMINER
YUN, CARINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2021 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
donald.wilson@veeva.com
lin.deng@veeva.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER GASSNER, IGOR TSIVES, JON STONE, and
ARVIND TALARI
____________

Appeal 2019-006324
Application 15/228,968
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–14, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Claims 15–20 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest
is Veeva Systems Inc. See Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006324
Application 15/228,968

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Introduction
Embodiments of Appellant’s claimed invention relate generally to “a
method for migrating configuration changes to a target content management
system.” (Spec. ¶ 3).
Representative Independent Claim 1
1. A method for migrating configuration changes from a
source system to a target content management system,
comprising:
exposing a first application programming interface
(“API”);
generating a first migration statement with the first API,
wherein the first migration statement comprises information
about existing configuration of the source system, a first
migration command, type of a first source system component,
and name of the first source system component;
executing the first migration statement on the source
system to generate new source system configurations;
sending a second API from the source system to the target
system, wherein the second API contains new source system
configurations as an input; and
executing the second API on the target system to apply the
new source system configurations on the target system to migrate
configuration changes from the source system to the target
system without disturbing operation of the target system.
Appeal Br. 19, Claims APP. (disputed limitations are emphasized).

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed June 6, 2018 (“Final
Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed December 10, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Supplemental
Appeal Brief (correcting the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter), filed
April 26, 2019 (Supp. Appeal Br.); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 24,
2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed August 26, 2019 (Reply Br.).
Appeal 2019-006324
Application 15/228,968

3
Evidence
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Bittlingmayer et al. US 2007/0220248 A1 Sept. 20, 2007
Garza et al. US 2012/0246179 A1 Sept. 27, 2012
Cassidy US 2016/0050257 A1 Feb. 18, 2016
Phan et al. US 2016/0094406 A1 Mar. 31, 2016
Pohjoisvirta et al. US 2016/0173590 A1 June 16, 2016

Rejections A, B, C, and D under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Rej Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
A 1, 3, 4 103 Bittlingmayer et al. (“Bittlingmayer”),
Phan et al. (“Phan”)
B 2 103 Bittlingmayer, Phan, Pohjoisvirta et al.
(“Pohjoisvirta”)
C 5–8 103 Bittlingmayer, Phan, Garza et al.
(“Garza”)
D 9–14 103 Bittlingmayer, Phan, Cassidy

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited
references?

Appeal 2019-006324
Application 15/228,968

4
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection A of Claims 1, 3, and 4 under § 103
Issues: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we focus our analysis on the disputed
limitations regarding Rejection A of claims 1, 3, and 4, and the Examiner’s
reasons for combining the cited references. We consider the following
issues (1), (2), and (3) seriatim:
1. Did the Examiner err by finding that Bittlingmayer and Phan
collectively teach or suggest the disputed “sending” step:
sending a second API from the source system to the target
system, wherein the second API contains new source system
configurations as an input[,]
within the meaning of method claim 1?3 (Emphasis added.) See Final
Act. 3–5.
2. Did the Examiner err by finding that Bittlingmayer and Phan
collectively teach or suggest the disputed “executing” step:
executing the second API on the target system to apply the
new source system configurations on the target system to migrate
configuration changes from the source system to the target
system without disturbing operation of the target system[,]
within the meaning of method claim 1? (Emphasis added.) See Final
Act. 3–5.

3 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation (“BRI”) consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Appeal 2019-006324
Application 15/228,968

5
3. Did the Examiner err in combining Bittlingmayer and Phan
because, as alleged by Appellant, the Examiner’s rationale for combining the
references is improper? See Appeal Br. 10–13.
(1) The disputed step of “sending” as recited in method claim 1
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings regarding the “sending”
step of claim 1, by contending that nothing in the parts of Bittlingmayer
relied upon by the Examiner teaches or suggests an API, nor the disputed
claim 1 limitation “sending a second API from the source system to the
target system, wherein the second API contains new source system
configurations as an input.” See Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added).
Regarding Bittlingmayer, Appellant contends:
In fact, in Bittlingmayer, a source system is queried to
determine configuration settings in the source system. A target
system is queried to determine configuration settings in the target
system. The determined configuration settings are processed
to generate commands to configurate the target system to
implement the configuration settings in the source system.
The generated commands are executed to configure the
target system (Bittlingmayer, paragraph [0007]). Bittlingmayer
uses a solution very different from the claimed invention, which
sends a second API from the source system to the target
system, wherein the second API contains new source system
configurations as an input.
Appeal Br. 14–15.
The Examiner disagrees with Appellant, and explains that
Bittlingmayer teaches or suggests an API because it teaches a command that
is sent from a source system to the target system. See Ans. 14. The
Examiner also notes that Phan teaches an API. See Ans. 15 (citing Phan
¶¶ 62, 79).
Appeal 2019-006324
Application 15/228,968

6
Appellant urges that the Examiner’s claim construction of the claim
term “API” does not cover the cited teachings and suggestions in
Bittlingmayer:
[T]he Examiner states that “an API is a set of commands,
functions and protocols, and objects that programmers can use to
create software to interact with an external interface.” However,
the Examiner then argued that “Bittlingmayer teaches an API
because it teaches a command that is sent from a source system
to the target system.” Appellants respectfully disagree, since the
Examiner’s reading the claimed API on a command is not
supported by her own definition of an API, which requires “a set
of commands that programmers can use to create software
to interact with an external interface.”
Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument for several reasons.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of an API as a set of
commands for software to interact with an external interface is at odds with
the Examiner’s finding that an API is taught or suggested by Bittlingmayer’s
commands that are sent from a source system to a target system. See Reply
Br. 4.
However, Bittlingmayer’s commands are also for software (a
migration program) to implement an application on an external interface —
i.e., on the target system. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the
Examiner erred, regarding whether an API is taught or suggested by
Bittlingmayer’s commands, because Phan expressly teaches the notoriously
well-known concept of an API. See e.g., Phan, Abstract (“An application
programming interface (API) can be used to initiate a resource group
across-cluster migration within a partition.”) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2019-006324
Application 15/228,968

7
Although Appellant focuses on Bittlingmayer as not teaching an API
(Appeal Br. 14), we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, because
the Examiner finds the combination of both Bittlingmayer and Phan teach or
suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1. And we find Phan’s API, when
used to modify Bittlingmayer, teaches or suggests the disputed API recited
in claim 1. See e.g., Phan, Abst, ¶ 5. 4
Our controlling case law recognizes that substitution of one known
element for another in a manner that yields predictable results to one of
ordinary skill in the art may support a conclusion that the claim would have
been obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–21 (2007).
It is our view that the Examiner’s modification of Bittlingmayer’s software
with an API (as taught by Phan) would have merely realized a predictable
result — and we thus conclude that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to integrate Bittlingmayer’s CLI or migrator with
Phan’s API with predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner’s claim
construction of the disputed limitation is overly broad or unreasonable.
Accordingly, we find the teachings and suggestions of Bittlingmayer, as
modified by Phan, encompass, and thus render obvious the disputed claim 1
limitation of “sending a second API from the source system to the target
system, wherein the second API contains new source system configurations
as an input.” Claim 1 (emphasis added).

4 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).

Appeal 2019-006324
Application 15/228,968

8
(2) The disputed step of “executing” as recited in method claim 1
Appellant urges that the “combination of Bittlingmayer and Phan fails
to teach or suggest ‘executing the second API on the target system to apply
the new source system configurations on the target system to migrate
configuration changes from the source system to the target system without
disturbing operation of the target system,’” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br.
15 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant focuses on the Examiner’s reliance upon Bittlingmayer’s
migrator 34, which gathers configurations settings by executing commands
on the source and target system, for teaching the second API and the
disputed “executing” step of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 16.
The Examiner finds that Bittlingmayer’s migrator, which gathers
configuration settings by executing commands, teaches or at least suggests
the disputed “execution” step of claim 1. Final Act. 4–5, Ans. 16.
On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred for
essentially the same reasons explained above. APIs are notoriously well
known in the art, and are taught by Phan, as discussed above. We find the
Examiner’s proffered combination of Bittlingmayer and Phan would have
merely realized a predictable result in accordance with the guidance of KSR.

(3) The combinability of Bittlingmayer and Phan
Appellant urges that “[n]othing in Bittlingmayer indicates that it needs
the features in Phan. There is no suggestion or motivation for a skilled
artisan to combine Bittlingmayer and Phan to reconstruct the claimed
invention.” Appeal Br. 12.
Appeal 2019-006324
Application 15/228,968

9
In support, Appellant avers: “Even if, arguendo, that Bittlingmayer
and Phan can be combined or modified, the results would not have been
predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, given the different problems
they solve, and the different solutions they use.” Id.
However, Appellant has not provided evidence of any unpredictable
results if Bittlingmayer was modified with Phan’s API. We do not find
Appellant’s argument that Phan is used for a different purpose
persuasive. The Supreme Court guides: “[N]either the particular motivation
nor the avowed purpose of the [Appellants] controls” when performing an
obviousness analysis. KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. For a prima facie case of
obviousness to be established, the reference need not recognize
the same problem solved by the Appellant. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427,
1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The Examiner cites to Bittlingmayer for teaching the limitations of
claim 1 and cites to Phan for teaching a first migration command, type of a
first source system component, and name of the first source system
component. See Final Act. 5. Phan’s teaching of these identification
features allows for the proper identification of the migration statement. The
Examiner articulates a motivation for combining the references, which is to
efficiently perform the migration of a cluster by identifying the proper entity
to migrate. See Final Act. 5.
The Supreme Court guides: “a combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. Moreover,
substitution of components does not destroy the principle of operation where
Appeal 2019-006324
Application 15/228,968

10
it does not destroy the overall principle of operation of the device. In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Appellant’s attacks on the references in isolation (Appeal Br. 10–13,
Reply Br. 3) is not convincing of error in the Examiner’s ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness, because all of the features of the secondary
reference need not be bodily incorporated into the primary reference.
Consideration should be given to what the combined teachings, knowledge
of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved
as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The artisan is not compelled to
blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without
the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip
Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Supreme Court provides additional guidance that the conclusion
of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple
patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in
the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person
having ordinary skill in the art, and an obviousness “analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
See also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH& Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick
Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Further, Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence that
combining the respective teachings of Bittlingmayer and Phan would have
been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,”
Appeal 2019-006324
Application 15/228,968

11
or that such a combination would have “represented an unobvious step over
the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellant has not identified knowledge gleaned only
from the present application that was not within the level of ordinary skill at
the time the claimed invention was made. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d
1392 (CCPA 1971).
Applying this reasoning here, and based upon our review of the
record, we find the Examiner set forth sufficient articulated reasoning having
a rational underpinning to support the proposed modification of
Bittlingmayer with Phan. See Final Act. 5, Ans. 12–14.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s Rejection A of representative,
sole independent claim 1. Dependent claims 3 and 4 (not separately argued)
fall with independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Rejections B, C, and D under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The remaining dependent claims, as rejected under Rejections B, C,
and D, were not argued separately. Arguments not made are waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness Rejections B, C, and D of the remaining dependent claims on
appeal.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–14 as being obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited combinations of references.

Appeal 2019-006324
Application 15/228,968

12
DECISION SUMMARY
Rej. Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
A 1, 3, 4 103 Bittlingmayer,
Phan
1, 3, 4
B 2 103 Bittlingmayer,
Phan, Pohjoisvirta
2
C 5–8 103 Bittlingmayer,
Phan, Garza
5–8
D 9–14 103 Bittlingmayer,
Phan, Cassidy
9–14
Overall
Outcome
1–14
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)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED