Ex Parte Lock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2017

13569483 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2017)

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.
13/569,483 08/08/2012 Hendrik C.R. LOCK 14291-128-999/2008P00049U 7751
140285 7590 10/23/2017
Jones Day For SAP
250 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281-1047
EXAMINER
KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2017 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 HENDRIK C.R. LOCK, VIKAS LAMBA,
PRAVIN PRAKASH PATTEWAR, and
RAMPRASADH KOTHANDARAMAN
Appeal 2015-005642
Application 13/569,4831
Technology Center 2100
Before SCOTT E. BAIN, DAVID J. CUTITTAII, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 14—25,2 which constitute all of the pending claims on appeal. Appeal
Br. 1. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. See Appeal
Br. 1.
2 Claims 1—13 are cancelled. See Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2015-005642
Application 13/569,483
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “methods to enable a data exchange
between a third system, e.g., a backend system, and a mobile application.”
Spec. 112.* * 3
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 14 and 17 are independent. Claim 14 is illustrative and is
reproduced below with the dispositive disputed limitation (the “disputed
limitation”) italicized:
14. A computer-implemented method for providing
access to data and maintaining data integrity, the method
comprising:
changing data by either adding or revising data in a
document in a first server using a first computer application;
assigning keys to documents containing the changed data
at a first middleware associated with the first computer
application in a key mapping operation, wherein the documents
containing the changed data include new documents that are
assigned new keys and revised documents, which have
previously assigned keys;
calling, by the first middleware, a service operating on a
second middleware, wherein the service call includes new keys
and keys of documents with new data, and wherein push and pull
functionality of data in the first server is not available directly to
the second middleware',
3 Our Decision refers to: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed August 8, 2012
(“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed April 23, 2014;
(3) the Appeal Brief filed October 15, 2014 and corrected Appeal Brief filed
November 6, 2014 (“Appeal Br.”); (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed March 12, 2015; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 12,
2015.
2
Appeal 2015-005642
Application 13/569,483
after the new keys match the previously assigned keys
maintained by the first middleware, replicating the changed data
in the document and update data, maintained by the first
middleware, related to the document;
mapping the changed data and a primary key related to the
changed data provided by the first middleware to a database
maintained by a second server;
replicating the changed data at the second middleware;
and
uploading the replicated data to a client.
Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 1.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal includes:
Goldman et al.
(“Goldman”)
Schmitt et al.
(“Schmitt”)
Sasson et al.
(“Sasson”)
Olson
Xie
Wahl
US 6,615,405 B1 Sept. 2, 2003
US 2005/0283492 Al Dec. 22, 2005
US 2006/0190806 Al Aug. 24, 2006
US 2007/0135137 Al June 14, 2007
US 2008/0075049 Al Mar. 27, 2008
US 2008/0215743 Al Sept. 4, 2008
REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schmitt, Olson, and Wahl. Final Act. 2—6.
(2) Claims 15, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schmitt, Olson, Wahl, and Sasson. Final Act. 6—
9.
3
Appeal 2015-005642
Application 13/569,483
(3) Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schmitt, Olson, Wahl, Sasson, and Goldman. Final
Act. 9-10.
(4) Claims 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schmitt, Olson, Wahl, and Xie. Final Act. 10-14.
(5) Claims 18, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schmitt, Olson, Wahl, Xie, and Sasson. Final
Act. 15-17.
(6) Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schmitt, Olson, Wahl, Xie, Sasson, and Goldman. Final
Act. 18-19.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2014).
ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue presented on
appeal is whether the Examiner errs in finding that the combination of
Schmitt and Wahl teaches or suggests “calling, by the first middleware, a
service operating on a second middleware, wherein the service call includes
new keys and keys of documents with new data, and wherein push and pull
functionality of data in the first server is not available directly to the second
middleware,” as recited in claim 14.
4
Appeal 2015-005642
Application 13/569,483
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
In support of the rejection of claim 14, the Examiner finds the
combination of Schmitt and Wahl teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Specifically, the Examiner finds Schmitt teaches
a method for online transactional data processing (OLTP) which
during the first run of OLTP application program (first program
associated with the first computer application) a key generated
for each change document of the original set and the new set of
change document would be stored in the RAM. The second run
of application program would create a second set of changes.
Ans. 3^4 (citing Schmitt || 10, 39-42). The Examiner relies on Wahl to
teach middleware. Ans. 4 (citing Wahl || 7, 8).
Appellants argue “[njowhere does Schmitt disclose or suggest the
calling of a service operating on a second middleware, which second
middleware is different from a first middleware. Schmitt describes two runs
of a same application program.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue
“Wahl describes the relationship between a server and a calling middleware,
namely that a particular service provided by a server is unavailable to the
calling middleware. Wahl does not concern multiple middleware, and thus
does not disclose that services of the server are unavailable to a second
[different] middleware.” Id.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Even assuming Wahl
teaches middleware, the Examiner does not, on the record before us,
establish how Schmitt’s successive execution of the OLTP application
program teaches or suggests the claimed “calling, by the first middleware, a
service operating on a second middleware.” See Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 2—\.
Appellants’ Specification, referring to Figure 1, indicates DOE middleware
115 processes a call from X middleware 120 to provide push-pull
5
Appeal 2015-005642
Application 13/569,483
functionality to X middleware 120 from backend Y server 114 that is not
directly available to the X middleware 120. Spec. 122. “Specifically, the
DOE middleware 115 provides the capability to receive an intermediate
document with the primary key and document type, and in response to
receiving the intermediate document to pull the data from the backend Y
server 114.” Id. In contrast, Schmitt describes “[a] first run of an OLTP
application program is performed for processing the transactional data
generating a first set of change documents” and “[a] second run of the OLTP
application program is initiated to create a second set of change documents
that is temporarily stored in the random access memory.” Schmitt 110.
Accordingly, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Schmitt’s
successive execution of the OLTP application program teaches or suggests
the claimed “calling, by the first middleware, a service operating on a
second middleware.” Ans. 3.
In addition, referring to figure 2, the cited portions of Wahl describe
an enterprise network in which a single middleware client for a particular
service is configured with a set of network addresses of servers that provide
that service. Wahl H 7, 9. In case a first server providing the particular
service is unavailable, the middleware client can call a second server. Wahl
1 9. We agree, therefore, with Appellants that “Wahl does not concern
multiple middleware, and thus does not disclose that services of the server
are unavailable to a second middleware different from the first middleware.”
Reply Br. 3.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown how Schmitt, alone or in
combination with Wahl, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation as
claimed. We, therefore, agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
6
Appeal 2015-005642
Application 13/569,483
established the combination of Schmitt, Olson, and Wahl would have
rendered claim 14 obvious. Because we agree with at least one of the
dispositive arguments advanced by Appellants for claim 14, we need not
reach the merits of Appellants’ other contentions.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 14. Because the Examiner does not rely on Xie to cure the
deficiency of the obviousness rejection discussed above, we also do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 17, which recites limitations
commensurate in scope to claim 14. We further do not sustain the rejections
of dependent claims 15, 16, and 18—25, which stand with their respective
independent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 14—25.4
REVERSED
4 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether claims 14 and 17 should be rejected under § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement by impermissibly
adding new matter to the original disclosure. The limitation “wherein push
and pull functionality of data in the first server is not available directly to the
second middleware,” was added by amendment during prosecution. See
Amendment filed January 14, 2014, page 2. Appellants cite paragraph 22 of
the Specification as providing support for the newly added limitation. Id. at
1. The Examiner may wish to determine whether the cited portion of the
Specification is limited to providing support for the limitation wherein push
and pull functionality of data in the second server (corresponding to backend
Y server 114) is not available directly to the first middleware (corresponding
to X middleware 120). See Spec. ]Hf 22—24. Although the Board is
authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should
be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
7