Werner Laber et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2020

13586774 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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.
13/586,774 08/15/2012 Werner Laber 2058.763US1 9731
50400 7590 03/03/2020
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
WALKER III, GEORGE H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2020 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WERNER LABER, RALF BESINGER,
ANDREAS HEINZMANN, CHRISTIAN HOFFMANN,
and JENS-PETER JENSEN
____________

Appeal 2018-004139
Application 13/586,774
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which are all of the pending
claims. See Appeal Br. 14–31 and Final Act. 1–17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies SAP SE as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-004139
Application 13/586,774

2
Introduction
Appellant states the “disclosure relates to utilizing a Process Object
Layer [(POL)] to mediate business services with backend systems.” Spec.
¶ 1. “Process objects” in the POL mediate between front-end applications
and “business process objects” on backend systems for providing services
such as bank account processing. See Figs. 1–5, Spec. ¶¶ 42–47. The POL
process objects include a persistent local representation of data elements of
backend system objects to provide a “local view” of the business process
objects, which facilitates “efficient execution and/or orchestration of the
tasks of the service by the [POL] process object.” Id. ¶ 46.
Independent claim 19 is illustrative, reproduced here with certain data
structure-related limitations emphasized in italics:
19. A computerized method for providing a service,
the method comprising:
instantiating, using at least one processor of a machine,
an instance of a process object of a service infrastructure,
wherein the process object comprises a first data structure and
is configured to manage two or more business process objects
of the service infrastructure that reside external to the process
object and on two or more heterogeneous backend systems,
each of the two or more business process objects comprising a
corresponding data structure containing information related to
the corresponding business process object, the first data
structure maintaining a local representation of at least a
portion of the information in one of the corresponding data
structures, each of the heterogeneous backend systems
providing different functionality; and
performing, using the one or more processors, the service
utilizing the process object of the service infrastructure and at
least one of the back end systems.
Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App’x).
Appeal 2018-004139
Application 13/586,774

3
Rejections & References
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12–15, and 18–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zimmerman et al., Service-
Oriented Architecture and Business Process Choreography in an Order
Management Scenario: Rationale, Concepts, Lessons Learned (OOPSLA
Oct. 16–20, 2005) (“Zimmerman”) and Lai (US 7,698,398 B1; Apr. 13,
2010). Final Act. 5–11.
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zimmerman, Lai, and Ohashi (US 2007/0214173 A1;
Sept. 13, 2007). Final Act. 11–12.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 7, 18, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zimmerman, Lai, and Richter (US
2013/0031014 A1; Jan. 31, 2013). Final Act. 12–15.
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zimmerman, Lai, and Bornhoevd (US 7,779,383 B2; Aug.
17, 2010). Final Act. 15–16.
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zimmerman, Lai, and Bernardini (US 2010/0031090 A1;
Feb. 4, 2010). Final Act. 17.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Zimmerman for teaching
the claim’s “first data structure” limitations (shown in italics above in the
Introduction). See Final Act. 3, 5–6. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Zimmerman’s disclosure of storing a process’s context in a database
inherently teaches the recited “first data structure . . . maintaining a local
representation of at least a portion of the information in one of the
Appeal 2018-004139
Application 13/586,774

4
corresponding data structures,” as recited. Id. at 3 (citing Zimmerman 2
(§ 2.3), 6 (§ 3.4)). In particular, the Examiner maps the “business process”
of Zimmerman to claim 1’s process object and finds, because Zimmerman
discloses that “all parts of the business process . . . context are stored in a
database . . . and can be restored at a later stage” (Zimmerman 6 (§ 3.4)),
that Zimmerman’s business process inherently contains a data structure that
“maintain[s] a local representation of at least a portion of the information in
one of the corresponding data structures,” as recited. Final Act. 3.
Appellant contends, inter alia,2 the Examiner errs in this inherency
finding. Appeal Br. 17–19. In particular, Appellant argues “that a teaching
that all parts of the business process context are stored in a database does
not teach a data structure stored in the process object itself,” as recited. Id.;
see also id. at 19 (contending “a disclosure of a ‘database’ is not equivalent
to a data structure in a process object, as would be apparent to a person of
ordinary skill in the art”).
The Examiner responds that because Zimmerman describes that its
business processes can “live” within a system for indefinite periods (i.e.,
because they can be restored using the stored context), Zimmerman’s
“business process context includes the business process itself,” and therefore
Zimmerman necessarily teaches that the business process (i.e., that is stored
in the database) includes claim 1’s recited “first data structure maintaining a
local representation of at least a portion of the information in one of the
corresponding data structures.” Ans. 5. As Appellant replies, however, and
we agree, “[t]here is no indication that the database stores anything other

2 Because we reverse the Examiner based on a dispositive issue, we do not
address all of Appellant’s arguments.
Appeal 2018-004139
Application 13/586,774

5
than the business process context, as opposed to the business process itself.
The Examiner has presented no evidence as to why the business process
[itself] must be stored in the database.” Reply Br. 3–4.
Appellant further replies, and we also agree, that the Examiner’s
inherency finding is flawed because the Examiner provides no evidence for
why Zimmerman’s business process information cannot be stored externally
to the business process (e.g., in a non-local, external database) as opposed to
locally, as required by claim 1. Reply Br. 4. Thus, on this record, there are
insufficient findings to show that Zimmerman teaches or suggests
instantiating an instance of a process object that “comprises a first data
structure” that “maintain[s] a local representation of at least a portion of the
information in one of the corresponding data structures” that are comprised
by two or more business process objects, as recited by claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) obviousness
rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons we do not sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 19 and 20, which include commensurate
limitations for which their rejection relies on the same findings. We also,
therefore, do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–18.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2018-004139
Application 13/586,774

6
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10,
12–15, 18–20
103(a) Zimmerman,
Lai
1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10,
12–15, 18–20
3 103(a) Zimmerman,
Lai, Ohashi
3
5, 7, 18, 17 103(a) Zimmerman,
Lai, Richter
5, 7, 18, 17
11 103(a) Zimmerman,
Lai, Bornhoevd
11
16 103(a) Zimmerman,
Lai, Bernardini
16
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED