SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 29, 2021

2020005745 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 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. 15/492,575 04/20/2017 Haibin Yuan 8880-98438-01 6433 106592 7590 10/29/2021 Klarquist Sparkman, LLP (SAP) 121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204 EXAMINER RAJAPUTRA, SUMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2021 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): docketing@klarquist.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HAIBIN YUAN Appeal 2020-005745 Application 15/492,575 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAP SE. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2020-005745 Application 15/492,575 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a translator component that implements an interface that forms requests based on the type of call and one or more arguments provided in the call to allow a plurality of software applications to access a data store. (Abstr.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. One or more computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that when executed cause a computing system to perform processing to process a call for data store services, the processing comprising: receiving a call through an interface to access a data store, the call comprising one or more arguments; determining an operation associated with the call; retrieving a request template associated with the operation; generating a request, the generating comprising combining at least one of the one or more arguments with the request template; and sending the request to the data store. (Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).) REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 4–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2002/0143943 A1, pub. Oct. 3, 2002). (Final Act. 5–20.) The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Xue (US 2016/0072927 A1, pub. Mar. 10, 2016). (Final Act. 21–22.) Appeal 2020-005745 Application 15/492,575 3 ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments present the following dispositive issue2: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Lee discloses the independent claim 1 requirement, “generating a request, the generating comprising combining at least one of the one or more arguments with the request template,” and the commensurate requirements of independent claims 18 and 20. (Appeal Br. 4–7.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and adopt as our own, (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 5– 22); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–16), and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For the claim 1 requirement, “generating a request, the generating comprising combining at least one of the one or more arguments with the request template,” the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Lee of an XML data structure “based on the XML templates corresponding to the request’s programs (arguments).” (Final Act. 6.) The Examiner further finds that “[t]he XML data structure combines the XML templates from each program to form a single data structure (the request is generated based on the 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 9, 2020); the Reply Brief (filed Aug. 5, 2020); the Final Office Action (mailed Nov. 14, 2019); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed June 9, 2020) for the respective details. Appeal 2020-005745 Application 15/492,575 4 retrieved template and the policies by inserting the arguments in the user's request).” (Id. at 6–7.) Appellant argues that the XML data structure that the Examiner refers to is “putting data responsive to a request in an XML data structure, not putting arguments provided in the user request into an XML data structure.” (Appeal Br. 6.) Appellant argues that Lee does not “describe sending XML data structures, populated with arguments from a user request, to the Directory Server.” (Id.) Thus, argues Appellant, “Lee . . . fails to teach all of the elements of claim 1, ‘as arranged in the claim.’” (Appeal Br. 5; (citing NET MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (2008).) In response the Examiner points to the disclosure in Lee of an “identity server” that receives user’s requests for access to data stores in the form: http://host:port/appname.cgi?param1=valuel¶m2=val2 . . . where: The “http” indicates the request is controlled by the HTTP protocol. The host:port field identifies the host that is the target of the request and port on that host. The appname field identifies the application for Identity Server 40 to perform. . . . The parameter fields (paraml, param2, . . .) identify parameters employed by the identified application. For example, param1 may be a function the identified application performs, and param2 may be a variable or other information required for carrying out the function. One example of a function is a search program that searches Directory Server 36 for entries with attributes corresponding to values in the request’s parameters. In this example, the parameters may require Identity Server 40 to search Directory Server 36 for the employee entry for John Smith. (Ans. 4–7; Lee Fig. 35, ¶¶ 294–295.) Appeal 2020-005745 Application 15/492,575 5 The Examiner further relies on the disclosure in Lee that in response to receiving the HTTP request, the identity server retrieves an XML template that corresponds to the function specified in the request, and populates that template with parameters included in the request. (Ans. 7, 9–10; Lee Figs. 38, 39, ¶¶ 310, 311, 322.) That template is then used to submit the request to the data store and, if the request results in data obtained from the store, populates the template with the results. (Ans. 7; Lee ¶¶ 322, 323.) Thus, the Examiner finds: Therefore Examiner disagrees with Appellant [that] the “XML data structure is generated from data retrieved from the remote data store” rather the “XML data structure is generated by . . . populating the XML template with the corresponding data/parameter values/arguments received from the user’s request.” (Ans. 14.) We agree with the Examiner. The HTTP request, with its parameter, is an example of the required “call . . . to access a data store, the call comprising one or more arguments,” and the XML template populated with the parameters satisfies the requirements: retrieving a request template associated with the operation; generating a request, the generating comprising combining at least one of the one or more arguments with the request template. This is illustrated in Lee by an example of an XML template generated by the above-quoted HTTP request requiring the Identity Server to search the Directory Server for the employee entry for John Smith: Appeal 2020-005745 Application 15/492,575 6 © Oblix, Inc., 2001 (Lee ¶ 316.) As shown, the template is populated with the surname “Smith” taken from the corresponding HTML parameter value. Appellant’s argument is based on the fact that the same template is used to convey the results of the search request after the request is submitted. (Lee ¶ 319.) But that does not diminish that fact the template is also used as the claims require. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 18, and 20 as anticipated by Lee. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4–17, and 19 as anticipated by Lee, and of claim 3 over the combination of Lee and Xue, which claims are not argued separately with particularity. (Appeal Br. 7–8.) Appeal 2020-005745 Application 15/492,575 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–20 102 Lee 1, 2, 4–20 3 103 Lee and Xue 3 Overall Outcome 1–20 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED