Ex Parte Schmidt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 201713757158 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/757,158 02/01/2013 Olaf Schmidt 22135-0172001/120055US01 8925 32864 7590 08/23/2017 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER MCQUITERY, DIEDRA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2017 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OLAF SCHMIDT and MARTIN P. FISCHER Appeal 2017-003865 Application 13/757,158 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. EVANS, SCOTT E. BAIN, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—11, 13—16, and 18—23. Br. 6.2 Claims 2, 12, and 17 have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as SAP SE. Br. 4. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”) mailed September 24, 2015, (2) the Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.”) mailed December 30, 2015, (3) the Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed March 23, 2016, and (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed August 12, 2016. Appeal 2017-003865 Application 13/757,158 THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to migrating business applications to cloud-based services and applications. Spec. 11. In particular, the invention migrates on-premise data objects used by on-premise applications to on-demand data objects used by on-demand applications. Id. 12. On premise applications can be locally accessible programs operated by an enterprise. Id. 122. On-demand applications can be remotely accessible programs provided by a cloud service provider. Id. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the limitation at issue in italics: 1. A computer-implemented method for automatically migrating on-premise data objects to on-demand data objects, the method being executed using one or more processors and comprising: identifying a first mapping between an on-premise database and the on-premise data objects according to a first schema associated with the on-premise database, the on premise database and the on-premise data objects used by an on-premise application that is executed within an on-premise computing environment; based on the first mapping, extracting, by the one or more processors, data corresponding to a subset of the on premise data objects that are affected during execution of the on-premise application, the data being stored in the on-premise database; generating, by the one or more processors, an export file, the export file comprising the data; in response to and subsequent to identifying the first mapping, identifying, by the one or more processors, a second mapping between the subset of the on-premise data objects and the on-demand data objects; generating, by the one or more processors, an import file based on i) the export file and ii) the second mapping; and providing the import file to an on-demand computing environment that hosts an on-demand application, the import 2 Appeal 2017-003865 Application 13/757,158 file being processable by the on-demand computing environment to write the data from the import file into an on- demand database, the on-demand database and the on-demand data objects used by the on-demand application that is executed within the on-demand computing environment, the on-demand data objects being affected during execution of the on-demand application, wherein the on-premise data objects are associated with an on-premise process executed by the on-premise application, the on-demand data objects are associated with an on-demand process executed by the on-demand application, and the on- demand process and the on-premise process provide a same process result. THE REJECTION3 The Examiner relies on the following as evidence: Schmidt et al. US 2003/0074386 A1 Apr. 17, 2003 Mullins et al. US 2003/0208505 Al Nov. 6, 2003 Claims 1, 3—11, 13—16, and 18—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mullins and Schmidt. Final Act. 3—10. ANALYSIS In the proposed combination of Mullins and Schmidt, the Examiner finds that Mullins teaches an application running at a customer’s location, corresponding to the recited on-premise application. Final Act. 4 (citing Mullins 1174). The Examiner further finds that Mullins’s database B1 corresponds to the recited on-premise database. Ans. 3 (citing Mullins 11146-48). 3 The rejection of independent claims 1 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, (Final Act. 2—3) has been withdrawn. See Adv. Act. 1. 3 Appeal 2017-003865 Application 13/757,158 Appellants argue that Mullins does not identify a mapping between an on-premise database and on-premise data objects used by an on-premise application. Br. 14—15. According to Appellants, Mullins explains that the customer’s application is not at the same location as the corresponding database. Id. at 14 (citing Mullins H 174—75). Appellants’ argument is persuasive. The Specification discloses that on-premise applications can be locally accessible programs that access legacy data. Spec. 122. But Appellants do not define the term “on premise” to confine our interpretation to this example. Nevertheless, according to the claim language, the recited identifying step requires an on-premise application and an on-premise database. Because both are “on premise,” the recited application and database must at least be at the same location. The Examiner finds that Mullins’s database B1 corresponds to the recited on-premise database, but the Examiner has not identified an application at the same location that uses a data object, as recited. Final Act. 4. In particular, Mullins’s system transfers data between two data sources having different formats. See Mullins H 146-47, cited in Final Act. 4. To facilitate this exchange, Mullins uses a dynamic mapping layer so that the developer is not constrained by a particular database’s structure. Mullins 1163. For example, the data sources can be a first database B1 and a second database B2. Id. 1146. Using maps defining the schema, a Java application can then transfer data from B1 and B2. Id. 149-162, cited in Ans. 5. The Examiner, however, does not show that the Java application and B1 are at the same location. See Final Act. 4. 4 Appeal 2017-003865 Application 13/757,158 Instead, the Examiner finds that Mullins’s application at the customer’s location corresponds to the recited on-premise application. Final Act. 4 (citing Mullins 1174); see also Ans. 6. But Mullins explains that the corresponding database is not in the same location as this application. Mullins 174—75, cited in Br. 14. In fact, Mullins expressly states that (1) the application software is run at a customer’s location, and (2) the production database or data store “is not at the site of the application.” Mullins H 174—75. The Examiner has not identified an alternative to this embodiment (id.) that teaches or suggests the limitation at issue. According to the Examiner, Mullins’s caching system, which coordinates the transactions, comprises a “local computer system.” Ans. 4 (citing Mullins 132). But the Examiner has not shown that this local system contains database B1 and the customer’s application. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner also adds that (1) Mullins’s computer is connected via local access to the Java Application client and (2) the computer’s operating system contains an abstract or translation layer. Ans. 3^4 (citing Mullins 187, 189, Figs. 3—6). The abstract layer, also known as the translation layer, facilitates communication between an application and a database. Mullins Tflf 170-71, 177. To the extent that Mullins uses local components to communicate with a database, the Examiner has not adequately explained why it follows that Mullins then teaches or suggests that database B1 and the customer’s application are at the same location. See Ans. 3—5. Accordingly, we are convinced that the Examiner erred in finding that Mullins teaches or suggests an identifying step involving an on-premise database B1 and a customer’s on-premise application software, as recited. 5 Appeal 2017-003865 Application 13/757,158 The Examiner does not rely on Schmidt to teach the feature missing from Mullins. See Final Act. 3—7. On this record, the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) independent claim 1, (2) independent claims 11 and 16, which are rejected under the same rationale (id. at 9), and (3) dependent claims 3—10, 13—15, and 18—23 for similar reasons. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—11, 13—16, and 18-23. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation