Veeva Systems Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 10, 2021

2020000617 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 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.
15/143,206 04/29/2016 Sandeep Chopra V0019 5026
125563 7590 05/10/2021
Veeva Systems Inc.
4280 Hacienda Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
EXAMINER
BUKHARI, SIBTE H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/10/2021 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 SANDEEP CHOPRA,
ZHANYE TONG, ERIC BATZDORFF, JON STONE, and TAO WANG
Appeal 2020-000617
Application 15/143,206
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–17, all of the pending claims. Claims 3 and
18 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies Veeva Systems Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000617
Application 15/143,206

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “controlling document access in a content
management system.” Spec. Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method for controlling document access in a content
management system, wherein the content management system
stores a first document and a second document and wherein each
of the documents is associated with a set of attributes, the method
comprising:
displaying a first user interface for receiving user setup
records, wherein each user setup record comprises a user role
field and a product field;
receiving and storing a first user setup record and a second
user setup record, wherein the first user setup record comprises
a first user role and a first product, and the second user setup
record comprises a second user role and a second product;
generating a first user group and a second user group,
wherein the first user group is associated with the first product
and the second user group is associated with the second product;
assigning the first user to the first user group when
attributes of the first user setup record satisfy requirements of the
first user group, and assigning the second user to the second user
group when attributes of the second user setup record satisfy
requirements of the second user group, wherein requirements of
the first user group comprise the first product;
displaying a second user interface for receiving definition
of a matching rule for matching the user groups to the documents,
wherein the second user interface comprises a first field of the
first user setup record, and a window for receiving a first attribute
of the first document which matches the first field of the first user
setup record;
Appeal 2020-000617
Application 15/143,206

3
receiving definition of the matching rule; and
determining that the first user group matches the first
document based on the matching rule, the first user setup record,
and attributes of the first document.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art:
Name Reference Date
Liu US 2016/0314519 A1 Oct. 27, 2016
Okada US 2010/0043070 A1 Feb. 18, 2010
Shiman US 2002/0019827 A1 Feb. 14, 2002
Tsao US 2008/0091761 A1 Apr. 17, 2008
REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims References Final Act.
1, 2, 4, 6–17 Shiman, Tsao, Okada 2
5 Shiman, Tsao, Okada, Liu 9–102
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Okada teaches or suggests “the first
user group is associated with the first product and the second user group is
associated with the second product” and “requirements of the first user
group comprise the first product,” as recited in claim 1?

2 Although the Examiner’s introductory paragraph mistakenly repeats the
claim numbers from the previous rejection, the rest of the rejection
substantively addresses claim 5. Final Act. 9–10; Appeal Br. 5, 13.
Appeal 2020-000617
Application 15/143,206

4
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “the first user group is associated with the first product
and the second user group is associated with the second product” and
“requirements of the first user group comprise the first product.”
The Examiner determines that “[t]he term[] ‘Product’ was not defined
in the claims but in the specification it is define[d] as ‘[0032], Documents
may also have a number of attributes, which may include document ID,
product (e.g., Coldcap and Restalot) and country’.” Ans. 4 (emphasis
omitted). The Examiner further finds that Okada discloses “the document
content d11 may contain document attributes” and “[t]he term document
attributes is interpreted as product.” Id. at 4–5 (emphasis omitted) (citing
Okada ¶ 47, Fig. 5). The Examiner then points to Okada’s inhibition-type
policies and obligation-type policies, which are rules about what can/cannot
or must be done (e.g., “User A should be permitted to read the document” or
“only the preparer (section) can edit the document”). Id. at 5 (citing and
quoting Okada ¶ 49, Fig. 5). The Examiner also quotes Okada as disclosing,
“The user attribute data is data that corresponds to name or a group (role)
where a user belongs to. The group (role) is a user group in which a
managerial position and a section in a company employing the user, and
others are optionally set.” Id. at 5 (quoting Okada ¶ 33 though mistakenly
referring to it as “Para.22”). Finally, the Examiner finds, “Based on the
above explanation Okada discloses document access to multiple users which
are in at least groups associated with the document attributes and users,
which basically is the claimed limitation under scope.” Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that “[a]lthough paragraph [0032] of the present
application mentions that document attributes may include a product and
Appeal 2020-000617
Application 15/143,206

5
Okada mentions document attributes, Okada does not teach or suggest the
recited ‘product’ if it does not disclose the claimed ‘product’ by itself.”
Appeal Br. 12.
We agree with Appellant’s contention. The Specification discloses
that a product may be an example of a document attribute, but the
Specification also discloses other examples of attributes such as “document
ID” and “country.” Spec. ¶ 32. Thus, there is insufficient explanation from
the Examiner as to why Okada’s disclosure of document attributes alone
would have rendered obvious a “product” or the claimed relationships with
such a “product.” Moreover, the Examiner points to Okado’s disclosure that
“[t]he user attribute data is data that corresponds to name or a group (role)
where a user belongs to,” yet then relies on Okado’s disclosure of “document
attributes” with no explanation of whether or why user attribute data and
document attributes are related. Okado ¶¶ 33, 47 (emphasis added). Even
though we agree with the Examiner that “Okada discloses document access
to multiple users which are in at least groups associated with the document
attributes and users” (Ans. 5), obviousness requires proof for all limitations
and we agree with Appellant that the Examiner here fails to support
adequately that Okado teaches or suggests the claimed “product” or group’s
relationship to a “product.”
Accordingly, given the lack of explanation from the Examiner, we are
constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4–17.
Appeal 2020-000617
Application 15/143,206

6
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6–17 103 Shiman, Tsao, Okada 1, 2, 4, 6–17
5 103 Shiman, Tsao, Okada, Liu 5
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–17
REVERSED