SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 29, 2021

2020004919 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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. 14/621,382 02/13/2015 MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM P 130993US01 (S21.215) 6245 52025 7590 09/29/2021 SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC 50 LOCUST AVENUE NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 EXAMINER GOFMAN, ALEX N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2021 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): colabella@bmtpatent.com martin@BMTPATENT.COM szpara@bmtpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM P ____________________ Appeal 2020 -004919 Application 14/621,3821 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC S. FRAHM, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant’s invention concerns improving the user experience when consuming business data. A framework middleware receives a request via an application to establish connection with multiple systems. Once connected, 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant states that the real party in interest is SAP SE. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 7 and 14 have been cancelled. Appeal 2020-004919 Application 14/621,382 2 the business data may be retrieved. The business data may then be transformed by triggering a transformation data model. Contextual information associated with the business data may be determined from the transformed business data. That contextual information may be displayed on a user interface or a dashboard that is instantiated by the application. The contextual information is customized based on user preferences. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A system to improve user experience when consuming business data, comprising: a processor, and one or more memory devices communicatively coupled with the processor and storing instructions related to: receiving a request, at a framework middleware via an application, to establish a connection with a plurality of business management systems; upon establishing the connection, the framework middleware retrieving business data from the plurality of business management systems, wherein a generic layer in the framework middleware provides a common interface to optimize the retrieval of the business data from the plurality of business management systems; based on an execution of a plurality of routines in the framework middleware, encrypting the retrieved business data, wherein the business data is encrypted sequentially by a sequential encryption algorithm; based on an execution of the plurality of routines in the framework middleware, triggering a system landscape transformation model to transform the retrieved business data, wherein transformation of the retrieved business data includes modification of the retrieved business data to conform to data models, and the retrieved business data is transformed by integrating one or more business process models and the business data, wherein the transformed business data includes one or more identifiers that determine a contextual information; Appeal 2020-004919 Application 14/621,382 3 determining the contextual information associated with the transformed business data via matching the one or more identifiers and one or more user attributes with the business data, and the contextual information includes a theme for the transformed business data; sending the contextual information associated with the transformed business data for displaying on a user interface of the application; receiving an input on one or more parameters including the one or more identifiers associated with the contextual information; and based on the received inputs, customizing the contextual information to be displayed on the user interface. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Wininger US 2009/0164490 A1 June 25, 2009 Koifman US 2009/0307249 A1 Dec. 10, 2009 Pillai US 2015/0256603 A1 Sept. 10, 2015 Claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–213 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pillai, Koifman, and Wininger. Final Act. 5. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed June 17, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 17, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 29, 2020) for their respective details. 3 Appellant refers to claims “1–6, 8–13, and 15–20” standing rejected in the Grounds of Rejection section of the Brief, but correctly refers to claims “1–6, 8–13, and 15–21” at all other pertinent points of the Brief. Appeal 2020-004919 Application 14/621,382 4 ISSUES 1. Does the combination of Pillai, Koifman, and Wininger teach or suggest transformed business data that includes one or more identifiers that determine a contextual information? 2. Does the combination of Pillai, Koifman, and Wininger teach or suggest contextual information that includes a theme for the transformed business data? ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “wherein the transformed business data includes one or more identifiers that determine a contextual information,” and “determining the contextual information associated with the transformed business data via matching the one or more identifiers and one or more user attributes with the business data, and the contextual information includes a theme for the transformed business data.” Independent claims 8 and 15 recite analogous limitations. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Pillai teaches that the transformed business data includes one or more identifiers. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends, instead, that in Pillai “data that has already been transformed is sent to a mobile device after application of a rule. . . . The transformed data in Pillai does not include the rule, rather, the transformed data and a rule are sent to the mobile device (suggesting they are separate) and a rule is applied to the already transformed data.” Appeal Br. 11. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that “while additional information may be sent with the transformed data in Pillai, this does not mean the additional information is incorporated with the transformed data such that it makes up the transformed data.” Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). Appeal 2020-004919 Application 14/621,382 5 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Appellant discloses that “identifiers may provide functionalities, such as determining the contextual information, providing access control to business data and/or the contextual information, business data localization, filtering and customization based on user preferences, etc.” Spec. ¶ 28. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Pillai teaches providing “additional information along with the transformed data to the one or more end users.” Such additional information can include “data associated with various mobile device functionalities,” such as GPS, “augmented reality, camera and maps to facilitate the one or more end users in effective decision making.” Ans. 4, citing Pillai ¶ 67. Appellant’s Reply Brief argument concerning “incorporation” of the additional information is similarly unpersuasive. The claimed invention does not recite any such “incorporation,” or recite further limitation(s) concerning in what particular manner transformed business data includes identifiers that determine a contextual information. Appellant further contends that the Examiner erred in finding that Wininger teaches “the contextual information includes a theme for the transformed business data.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant proffers a definition of “theme” as “the subject of . . . a piece of writing; a topic,” and argues that the configuration rules in Wininger that describe a size of a font to be used or contrast of display are simply formats for the display, and not a subject or topic. Id. Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred regarding a “theme” is not persuasive. The Examiner finds that Appellant’s Specification does not provide a definition for “theme,” and cites the Merriam-Webster definition, “a specific and distinctive quality, characteristic, or concern.” Ans. 5. Appeal 2020-004919 Application 14/621,382 6 Appellant does disclose that “contextual information displayed on the user interface or the dashboard may be personalized and customized (e.g., by theming, styling content) based on user preferences.” Spec. ¶ 25. We agree with the Examiner that this disclosure suggests that a theme in this context is something that is displayed based on user preference. Ans. 5–6. We further agree with the Examiner, then, that Wininger’s teaching that “a configuration rule may include the size of font to be used; or various accessibility parameters (increase contrast of display, etc.)” corresponds to a specific and distinctive quality or characteristic that is displayed based on a user preference, i.e., a theme. We find as a result that the combination of Pillai, Koifman, and Wininger teaches or suggests all the limitations of the invention under appeal. We will sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–21. CONCLUSIONS 1. The combination of Pillai, Koifman, and Wininger teaches transformed business data that includes one or more identifiers that determine a contextual information. 2. The combination of Pillai, Koifman, and Wininger teaches contextual information that includes a theme for the transformed business data. DECISION SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–21 is affirmed. Appeal 2020-004919 Application 14/621,382 7 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6, 8–13, 15–21 103 Pillai, Koifman, Wininger 1–6, 8–13, 15–21 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED