Min He et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 7, 2021

2019006953 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 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.
13/929,475 06/27/2013 Min He 000005-034600US 1022
58735 7590 04/07/2021
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
EXAMINER
ALLEN, NICHOLAS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/07/2021 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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
klhussain@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIN HE, FRANK LE, HIREN KOTADIA, HEMANT
PURANIK, ABHIRAM GUJJEWAR, and DAVID KUNG
Appeal 2019-006953
Application 13/929,475
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and AMBER
L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, and 19–29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Business Objects
Software Ltd. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006953
Application 13/929,475

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The application relates generally to duplicate record matching and
consolidation from or more sources to a target system, and in particular, to
just-in-time data quality assessment for best record creation during data
management processes migration or integration. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, a best record strategy for
creating best record data comprising a plurality of data fields, the
best record strategy defining a first best record creation rule
specifying a first data source for a first data field in the plurality
of data fields and a second best record creation rule specifying a
second data source for a second data field in the plurality of data
fields;
generating, by the computer system, the first best record creation
rule and the second best record creation rule based on the best
record strategy, wherein the first best record creation rule
specifies the first data source for the first data field in the
plurality of data fields of the best record data and the second best
record creation rule specifies the second data source for the
second data field in the plurality of data fields of the best record
data;
receiving, by the computer system, a first plurality of record data
from the first and second data sources, wherein the first plurality
of record data comprises a first record data from the first data
source and a second record data from the second data source;
storing the first plurality of record data in a first database;
creating, by the computer system, the best record data by
retrieving the first plurality of record data from the first database
and applying the first and second best record creation rules to the
first plurality of record data in order to populate the first data
Appeal 2019-006953
Application 13/929,475

3
field of the best record data with a data field of the first record
data and populate the second data field of the best record data
with a data field of the second record data; and
storing the best record data in a second database different from
the first database.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kumar US 2012/0016899 A1 Jan. 19, 2012
Cohen US 2012/0072464 A1 Mar. 22, 2012
Gruenheid US 2012/0330911 A1 Dec. 27, 2012
Anderson US 2013/0124525 A1 May 16, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gruenheid and Kumar. Final Act. 4–
20.2
Claims 5–7, 12–14, and 19–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Gruenheid, Kumar, and
Anderson. Final Act. 20–22.

2 In the Answer, the Examiner states that claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, and 19–29
are rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over Gruenheid and Kumar.
Ans. 3. However, the office action from which this appeal is taken rejects
claims 5–7, 12–14, and 19–29 in view of references in addition to Gruenheid
and Kumar.
Appeal 2019-006953
Application 13/929,475

4
Claims 21–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gruenheid, Kumar, and Cohen. Final
Act. 23–25.
In the office action from which this appeal is taken, the Examiner also
rejected claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, and 19–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However,
the Examiner has withdrawn this rejection, and therefore removed it from
the issues we must consider in this appeal. Ans. 3.
OPINION
Specification
According to the Specification, there are many data handling
scenarios in which it is necessary to match and harmonize data records from
one or more source systems in order to integrate the records into a target
system. Spec. ¶ 3. For example, a company may buy, acquire, or otherwise
merge with another company. Id. The Specification explains that in order to
successfully merge the business operations of the two companies, it is
typically necessary to integrate the business records of both companies into a
single system. Id. However, according to the Specification, a problem
arises in that integrating business records from disparate systems in a
reliable and consistent manner can be an extremely arduous manual process.
Id. Data records in each of the companies’ systems may differ from one
another in various ways, such as level of detail, accuracy, consistency,
reliability, and the like. Id. Therefore, before the data records from the two
systems can be merged into a single system, it is often necessary to
harmonize and de-duplicate the records from the two systems, so that the
most consistent, reliable, and up to date data can be implemented in the
target data system. Id. An object of the purported invention, therefore, is to
Appeal 2019-006953
Application 13/929,475

5
improve systems for data assessment in the creation of a best record when
migrating data from multiple data sources into a target data source. Id. ¶ 8.
The Specification discloses a strategy for best record creation that
includes defining which record source among the plurality of record sources
will be the trusted source for each data field in the target system. Spec. ¶ 29.
For instance, the customer relationship management (“CRM”) system can be
designated as the trusted source to populate the customer name and address
fields, while the accounting system can be designated as the trusted source
for product names and descriptions fields. Id. The best record creation rules
generated based on the predetermined best record creation strategy can then
be tested using various embodiments disclosed in the Specification. Id. In
one embodiment, the best record creation rules can be applied to a subset of
the available matched data records. Id. ¶ 30. Once a user is satisfied with
the validation results using a particular set of best record creation rules
applied to a sample set of the data records, then the best record creation rules
can be stored in a strategy database. Id.
Discussion
Appellant appeals the rejection, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, of claims 1,
5–8, 12–15, and 19–29. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant provides argument for
independent claims 1, 8, and 15, from which all remaining appealed claims
depend. Id. at 10–14.3

3 The remaining appealed claims—claims 5–7, 12–15, and 19–20—are
rejected under separate grounds from the ground of rejection for claims 1, 8,
and 15. As we note above, claims 5–7, 12–14, and 19–20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gruenheid,
Kumar, and Anderson, and claims 21–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Gruenheid, Kumar, and
Appeal 2019-006953
Application 13/929,475

6
Appellant contends we should reverse the Examiner’s rejection
because Gruenheid neither teaches nor suggests: (1) generating first and
second best record creation rules, “wherein the first best record creation rule
specifies the first data source for the first data field in the plurality of data
fields of the best record data and the second best record creation rule
specifies the second data source for the second data field in the plurality of
data fields of the best record data,” as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15; and
(2) creating the best record data by retrieving or accessing “the first plurality
of record data from the first database and applying the first and second best
record creation rules to the first plurality of record data in order to populate
the first data field of the best record data with a data field of the first record
data and populate the second data field of the best record data with a data
field of the second record data,” as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Appeal
Br. 10–14.

Cohen. Final Act. 20–25. Appellant argues claims 1, 8, and 15 under the
same heading, and neither argues nor provides a separate heading for the
remaining grounds of rejection. Appellant is directed to the Code of Federal
Regulations, which specifies that an appeal brief shall contain “[t]he
arguments of appellant with respect to each ground of rejection,” and that
“[e]ach ground of rejection contested by appellant must be argued under a
separate heading, and each heading shall reasonably identify the ground of
rejection being contested (e.g., by claim number, statutory basis, and applied
reference, if any).” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (emphasis added). Moreover,
“[t]he arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by appellant. Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47
and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will
be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”
Id. (emphasis added). For reasons discussed below, and in the interests of
compact prosecution, we nonetheless reverse the Examiner’s rejections as to
the two latter grounds of rejection.
Appeal 2019-006953
Application 13/929,475

7
Appellant’s arguments specifically raise the issue of whether
Gruenheid’s disclosure of analyzing data extracted from multiple data
sources 6–1, 6–2, and 6-3, based on instantiated rules provided by analytics
generator 30 and executed by executor 20, teaches or suggests creating and
executing a rule that specifies using data from a first data source to populate
a first data field and data from a second data source to populate a second
data field in a target database. Appeal Br. 10–14; see also, e.g., Gruenheid
¶¶ 14, 61–64, Fig. 1, Fig. 2 (describing instantiated rules generated by
analytics generator 30). According to Appellant, Gruenheid’s application of
instantiated rules provides analytics regarding the quality of data from data
sources 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3, but does not specify that data from a specific data
source—i.e., one of data sources 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3—be used to populate a
specific data field in the target database. Appeal Br. 11. We find
Appellant’s arguments persuasive.
The claim limitations argued by Appellant require a record creation
rule that specifies the data source to be used to populate a data field and
populating that data field with data from the specified source. We agree
with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown Gruenheid teaches or
suggests this feature.
Gruenheid generally relates to enterprise data integration, and in
particular to providing data quality in data migration processes. Gruenheid
¶ 2. Gruenheid discloses a computer-implemented method of determining
data quality during data migration of data from at least one data source to a
target system. Id. ¶ 6. The method includes obtaining metadata describing
data structures—e.g., tables, fields, field lengths, field types, etc.—within
the target system (id. ¶¶ 6, 20, 29, 32–56), and using the metadata in
Appeal 2019-006953
Application 13/929,475

8
conjunction with predefined rule templates from rule templates module 32 in
order to generate instantiated rules (id. ¶¶ 6, 14, 57).
The instantiated rules are generated by replacing placeholders in the
rule templates with information from the metadata defining how data is
stored in the target system. Id. ¶ 29. For example, metadata may indicate
that certain data fields in the target system cannot have a null value. Id.
¶ 21.
Gruenheid exploits this requirement, obtained from the metadata, by
combining it with a rule template. Id. ¶ 28. For example, there may be
multiple copies of data from multiple sources. Executor 20 in Gruenheid
can run the instantiated rules on one or more copies of the data to determine
which fields violate the instantiated rules for a particular template. Id. ¶ 30.
The results may be stored and used to create a Gap Report. Id.
In the above example involving metadata indicating whether a data
field in the target system may have a null value, the Gap Report measures
the number of violations of the no-null value rule by field. Id. ¶ 21.
Gruenheid discloses seven non-limiting exemplary Gap Reports (id. ¶¶ 20–
28) that can be generated and to which different rule templates can be
provided. Id. ¶¶ 20–28.
Gruenheid, therefore, runs analytics on data retrieved from different
data sources, e.g., data sources 6–1, 6–2, or 6-3, to determine whether the
copies of data are compliant with the target system’s data requirements.
See, e.g., Gruenheid ¶¶ 61–63. Accordingly, the selection of which data to
load into the target system depends on metrics run on the data, rather than on
whether the data is from a specified source. Final Act. 4–8; Ans. 8–14; id.at
12 (quoting Gruenheid ¶ 61 (“In some embodiments, two or more copies of
Appeal 2019-006953
Application 13/929,475

9
data may be checked using an instantiated rule. For example, checks on
fields can be run based on an alignment schema using a copy of data from
various data sourced that has been structurally aligned, where running the
rule for this copy of data provides a baseline of initial assessment of what
needs to be done for the data. Checks can further be run on a copy of data
that is considered ‘load ready.’”)); id. at 13 (quoting Gruenheid ¶ 15 (“data
would be checked to determine whether it is good enough for enrichment
purposes”)).
The Examiner has neither identified, nor adequately explained, why
the claimed rule specifying a data source is taught or suggested by
Gruenheid. Of note, the Examiner does not identify, nor do we do discern,
among the metadata described in Gruenheid an indication that data for a
field in the target system be from a specific data source, e.g., data source 6-
1, 6-2, or 6-3. Final Act. 4–8; Ans. 8–14; Gruenheid ¶¶ 6, 20, 29, 32–56.
Nor does the Examiner identify, nor do we find, among the rule templates
described in Gruenheid, a rule specifying a data source to populate a
particular field in the target system. Final Act. 4–8; Ans. 8–14; Gruenheid
¶¶ 20–28.
Although Gruenheid need not expressly disclose such metadata or rule
templates in order for a finding of obviousness, in rejecting claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual
basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). To establish prima facie obviousness of a
claimed invention, the Examiner must show that all of the claim limitations
are taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985
(CCPA 1974).
Appeal 2019-006953
Application 13/929,475

10
Here, the cited evidence does not disclose the claimed feature at issue,
and the Examiner has not explained how the cited evidence teaches or
suggests such feature. For the aforementioned reasons, the Examiner has not
established that the prior art teaches or suggests generating first and second
best record creation rules, “wherein the first best record creation rule
specifies the first data source for the first data field in the plurality of data
fields of the best record data and the second best record creation rule
specifies the second data source for the second data field in the plurality of
data fields of the best record data,” as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
The remaining rejected claims depend from one of claims 1, 8, or 15.
The Examiner’s analysis in the rejections of these claims does not cure the
deficiencies discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, and 19–29.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
More specifically, we reverse
the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gruenheid and Kumar;
the rejection of claims 5–7, 12–14, and 19–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Gruenheid, Kumar, and
Anderson; and
the rejection of claims 21–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gruenheid, Kumar, and Cohen.
Appeal 2019-006953
Application 13/929,475

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 15 103 Gruenheid, Kumar 1, 8, 15
5–7, 12–
14, 19–20
103 Gruenheid, Kumar,
Anderson
5–7, 12–
14, 19–20
21–29 103 Gruenheid, Kumar,
Cohen
21–29
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–8, 12–
15, 19–29

REVERSED