Ex Parte Bermender et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2012

11095699 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2012)

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.
11/095,699 03/31/2005 Pamela Ann Bermender AUS920040960US1 3000
48916 7590 12/14/2012
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CAM LINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte PAMELA ANN BERMENDER, HUNG DINH,
TENG HU, and SHARON DOLLE SCHEFFLER
____________________

Appeal 2010-005707
Application 11/095,699
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005707
Application 11/095,699

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-9, and 11-23. Claims 2 and
10 have been canceled. (App. Br. 5). Appellants appeal therefrom under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is a method and system for an
administrative apparatus for creating a business rule set for dynamic
transform and load of data from a data source defined by metadata into a
data store defined by metadata. (Specification 1, [0001].)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for an administrative apparatus for creating a
business rule set for dynamic transform and load, the method
comprising:

generating output utilizing source metadata and store
metadata, wherein the source metadata defines a data source
and the store metadata defines a data store;

presenting the output via a graphical user interface;

receiving user input, wherein the user input indicates a
desired correspondence between the source metadata and the
store metadata to associate each particular element of the
source metadata to a corresponding element of the store
metadata;

creating a business rule set based on a business rule
template definition and the user input;

extracting data from the data source;
Appeal 2010-005707
Application 11/095,699

3
transforming the extracted data according to the business
rule set; and

loading the extracted and transformed data into the data
store.
(disputed limitations emphasized).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3 - 9, and 11- 23 stand provisionally rejected on the ground
of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1 - 20 of copending Application No. 10/981,286.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b), as
being anticipated by “Ellis” (U.S. Patent 6,195,662, B1, February 27, 2001.)

RELATED PRIOR DECISION
Appeal No. 2010-004340, (Application No. 10/981,286), BPAI opinion
mailed Sept. 5, 2012. (Examiner Affirmed). Note: In related Appeal No.
2010-004340, a different patent Examiner also relied on “Ellis” (U.S. Patent
6,195,662, B1) as evidence in support of the §102(b) rejection of claims 1-
20.

Provisional Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection
The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1, 3 - 9, and 11- 23 on the
ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of copending Application No. 10/981,286.
claims 1-4, 11, 13-21, and 23 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of
Copending Application Serial Number: 11/095,699. (Ans. 3-4).
Appeal 2010-005707
Application 11/095,699

4
Appellants do not address or otherwise contest the provisional
rejection in the Appeal Brief. No Reply Brief was filed. We note that
arguments not made are considered waived.1 See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, we pro forma sustain the Examiner's
provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1, 3 - 9,
and 11- 23 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of copending Application No.
10/981,286.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of the
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3 - 9, and 11- 23 on the basis of
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Under § 102, did the Examiner err in finding that Ellis discloses or
describes:
receiving user input, wherein the user input indicates a
desired correspondence between the source metadata and the
store metadata to associate each particular element of the
source metadata to a corresponding element of the store
metadata;

within the meaning of representative independent claim 1?

1 See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir 2008) (“When the
appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, section
1.192(c)(7) [(now section 41.37(c)(1)(vii))] imposes no burden on the Board
to consider the merits of that ground of rejection. . . . [T]he Board may treat
any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.”).
Appeal 2010-005707
Application 11/095,699

5
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2),
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to
arguments made in Appellants’ Appeal Brief. (Ans. 9-10). We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments below.

Appellants contend, inter alia:
Briefly, Ellis is directed to a system that transfers data from a
data source to a data target and to "map the import data .into the
required export data format and then to write data in the export
data bag to the external data target" (Abstract, lines 19-21).
There is simply nothing to suggest mapping one metadata to
another different metadata to achieve this objective. In other
Words, Ellis describes establishing a correlation between source
and target data rather than defining a "correspondence between
source and target metadata." Although Ellis describes data in
conjunction with metadata, Ellis does not suggest "'indicat[ing]
a desired correspondence between the source metadata and the
store metadata."
. . .
Clearly, the FOA is equating Ellis' "import data source 31" to
Appellants' "source metadata" and "Export data target 33" to
"store metadata." However, Ellis has an entirely different
element to represent metadata, specifically "metadata 38" (Fig.
3). In addition, by describing a metadata by means of a single
element 38, Ellis is not drawing a distinction between source
and target metadata. Obviously, Ellis cannot suggest the
element of indicating a correspondence between two types of
metadata if there is only one type of metadata.

(App. Br. 15-16).
Appeal 2010-005707
Application 11/095,699

6
We find Appellants contentions are grounded on an erroneous
premise: i.e., because Ellis provides for what appears to be a single metadata
storage database 38, that Ellis is limited to a single type of metadata that is
only stored in database 38.
As an initial matter of claim construction (as pointed out by the
Examiner – Ans. 8), “metadata” is a recognized term of art that is broadly
interpreted to mean “data about data.” Ellis describes “data bags” as
containing both definitions of data (i.e., metadata) and the actual generic
format data:
Data bags 43 are used in the present invention for the storage
and transformation of external data. A data bag contains both
the definition of the data contained within the data bag and the
actual generic format data. Generic format data refers to data
that has been stored within the present invention and is now
independent of the original data source. Data stored in this
generic format can be transformed into any required format for
exporting to an export data target 33(FIG. 2).

(Ellis, col. 4, ll. 11-19).

Ellis discloses a user interface that is used to define system
components, which include data bag definitions [plural] which are stored
metadata database 38, and the contents of the data bags which are stored in
internal datastore 35:
Also shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, the system includes a
configuration management user interface 39 to define the 35
components of the present invention, which include external
data connections 51, views 52, data bags 53, rule sets 54 and
scripts 55. These component definitions are stored in the
metadata database 38. The data bags are stored in the internal
datastore 35.

Appeal 2010-005707
Application 11/095,699

7
(Ellis, col. 4, ll. 32-38).

We find Ellis further discloses how data bags (containing
import and export metadata) are used to
Receiv[e] user input, wherein the user input indicates a desired
correspondence between the source metadata and the store
metadata to associate each particular element of the source
metadata to a corresponding element of the store metadata,
within the meaning of Appellants’ representative claim 1:

See, for example, Ellis at col. 5:

An import data connection 41must have one or more import
data views 42 and each data view must have an associated
import data bag 43. Using the data definitions in the data
definition collection 112 (FIG. 11) of a data bag, the import
data view 42 of the import data connection 41 is loaded in the
import data bag 43. An export data connection 46 must have
one or more export data views 45 and each data view must have
an associated export data bag 44. Using the data definitions in
the data definition 112 of a data bag, the export data view 45 of
the export data connection 46 is written using the data
contained in the data bag. Data bags are also defined for use by
script commands that require import and export data bag(s),
where these commands transform the data from the import data
bag 43 and place the results in the export data bag 44.

(Ellis, col. 5, ll. 6-19, emphasis added).
Therefore, we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
finding of anticipation regarding the disputed limitations:
Ellis dynamically transforms data "into and out of the system,
utilizing metadata definitions." (Col. 1, lines 64-66). Data is
exported from the system using an export data definition, and
data is imported into the system using the import data definition
(See abstract). An import data connection must have ... an
associated import data bag (Col. 5, lines 5 - 7). An export data
Appeal 2010-005707
Application 11/095,699

8
connection must have ... an associated export data bag (Col. 5,
lines 10 - 12). A data bag contains both the definition of the
data ... within the data bag (Col. 4, lines 12 - 13). Therefore,
Ellis discloses two types of data and metadata in the
"Transformation/Exchange System" (Fig. 1 #13).
. . .
(Ans. 7).
The format of the data and metadata of a Import Data Bag is
clearly different than the format of the data and metadata of the
Export Data Bag (See, e.g., Col. 7, line 67 through Col. 8, line
2: "data group definition #122 is different than data group
definition #112"). Therefore, Ellis at least discloses two
different types of data and metadata, in which can be
corresponding to source metadata and store metadata as in the
claim invention.
Further, Ellis discloses a configuration management user
interface to define the components of the present invention (col.
4, lines 33 - 35). The user will invoke the configuration
management user interface to create the required definitions
(col. 6, lines 52 - 54). By using the data bag definitions, the
Ellis patent allows the user to create the business rules that
include plurality of rules as seen in Fig. 5, step 54) and
transform the data between the source and the target data
stores.
Clearly, the Ellis reference does allow the user to indicate
a desired correspondence between the source metadata and the
store metadata.

(Ans. 8).

We additionally observe that Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to
further rebut the Examiner's responsive arguments and specific findings.
(Id.). Given the evidence (Ellis) provided by the Examiner (Ans. 4-9), as
further discussed above, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of representative claim
Appeal 2010-005707
Application 11/095,699

9
1, and of independent claims 7 and 15, for which no separate arguments of
patentability are made. (App. Br. 15-16). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
For the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, we find no
support for Appellants’ principal contentions that: (1) Ellis fails to
distinguish between data and metadata, and (2) that Ellis fails to disclose
different types of metadata. (App. Br. 16). Therefore, on this record, we are
not persuaded of Examiner error regarding dependent claims 4-6, 8, 9, 12-
14, 16, and 18-23, which fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 11, and 17, Appellants additionally
contend:
Claims 3, 11 and 17 are allowable for the same reasons stated
above with respect to claims 1, 7 and 15. In addition, the FOA
does not suggest any analogy between the elements of Ellis and
Appellants' "actions," "parent actions" and "child actions,"
merely stating that Ellis’s Fig, 6 shows a recursive process,
Further, claims 21-23 are allowable because each depends upon
one of the allowable independent claims.

(App. Br. 16).
We did not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive regarding
independent claims 1, 7, and 15, for the reasons discussed above regarding
independent claim 1. Moreover, Appellants do not provide any citations to
specific portions of Ellis to show evidence of error regarding the Examiner’s
finding of anticipation for claims 3, 11, and 17, over Figure 6 of Ellis.
Merely reciting the claim language followed by an unsubstantiated
allegation of patentability does not constitute a separate argument for
separate consideration by the Board. See Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-
004693, slip op. at 7-8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative); see also 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Appeal 2010-005707
Application 11/095,699

10
(“We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for
individual claims to be treated separately.”). For these reasons, on this
record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error regarding dependent claims
3, 11, and 17. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner anticipation rejection
of dependent claims 3, 11, and 17.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision provisionally rejecting claims
1, 3 - 9, and 11- 23 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of copending Application
No. 10/981,286.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3 - 9, and 11-
23 as being anticipated over Ellis under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

Vsh