SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 17, 2022

2021001404 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2022)

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. 15/381,567 12/16/2016 Thomas Kunz 22135-1004001/160860US01 9331 32864 7590 03/17/2022 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2432 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2022 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 THOMAS KUNZ, OMAR-ALEXANDER AL-HUJAJ, JENS BAUMGART, HARISH MEHTA, FLORIAN CHROSZIEL, MARCO RODECK, and THORSTEN MENKE1 _____________ Appeal 2021-001404 Application 15/381,567 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20. We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, SAP SE is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2021-001404 Application 15/381,567 2 INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a system for bi- directional content replication. The system makes use of a content replication connector that receives control data associated with replication of content data from a source system, which converts it to another format and sends it to a replication server. The content replication server replicates the content and provides to a target system. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: connecting a content replication server to a first content replication connector and a second content replication connector, the first content replication connector and the second content replication connector each comprising an import module, an export module, and a read content replication content module, the content replication server comprising a reactive component connectable to a plurality of systems being unaware of a total number of the plurality of systems; connecting a source system to the content replication server through the first content replication connector; connecting a target system to the content replication server through the second content replication connector; receiving, by the read content replication content module of the first content replication connector and from the source system, control data associated with replication of content data, wherein the control data indicates the source system and the target system; and based on the control data: fetching, by the import module of the first content replication connector, the content data from the source system; Appeal 2021-001404 Application 15/381,567 3 converting, by the import module of the first content replication connector, the content data from a first data format to a second data format; and sending, by the export module of the first content replication connector, the content data to the content replication server, wherein the content replication server replicates the content data, and the target system fetches the content data from the content replication server through the second content replication connector. Appeal Br. 19-20 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7 through 10, and 16 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2012/0317078 A1; pub. Dec. 13, 2012) and Raghunathan (US 2017/0308602 A1; pub. Oct. 26, 2017). Final Act. 4-8. The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Raghunathan, and Kuchibhotla (US 2016/0092535 A1; pub. Mar. 31, 2016). Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Raghunathan, and Sheive (US 2014/0047413 A1; pub. Feb. 13, 2014). Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Raghunathan, and Shaffer (US 2012/0158653 A1; pub. June 21, 2012). Final Act. 11-12. Appeal 2021-001404 Application 15/381,567 4 The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Raghunathan, Kuchibhotla, and Gutfleisch (US 2006/0059115 A1; pub. Mar. 16, 2006). Final Act. 13-14.2 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 18 is in error as the combination of Zhou and Raghunathan do not teach a first and second content replication connector, each comprising import, export, and read content replication modules as claimed. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues that the portions of Zhou, which the Examiner relies upon, does not teach or suggest the two content replication connectors or the modules as claimed, and that it is unclear “which functionalities of Zhou are equated to the modules.” Appeal Br. 14 (citing Final Act. 4-5). The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments on pages 3 through 13 of the Answer. The Examiner states: Zhou is cited for the majority of claim 1, including a content replication server (e.g., a replicate/replication server), a first content replication connector (e.g., replication agent), and a second content replication connector (e.g., another replicate/replication server or, perhaps, the functionality of any given replicate/replication server that would have the ability to function as described below). It is noted that Zhou states that 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed August 14, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Reply Brief, filed December 21, 2020 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 10, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Final Office Action, mailed April 17, 2020 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2021-001404 Application 15/381,567 5 the replication servers may send data to other replication servers. For example, paragraph 27 states “Replication server 112 disseminates those transactions to replicate databases 110 or other replication servers 112.” Therefore, replication servers may be chained, where the first replication server in the chain (e.g., right after the replication agent) would be the second content replication connector of claim 1 and the next (or a later chained server down the line) replication server would be the claimed replication server. Furthermore, the source system corresponds to the primary database (either by itself or in combination with the primary server) and the target system corresponds to the replicate database. The Raghunathan reference is brought into the combination for the disclosure that the control data indicates source and target systems. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner identifies that the functions of the claimed read content replication module and the input module are taught by Zhou’s disclosure that “structured data to be replicated is marked so that data can be identified for replication by the replication agent, which would read the marks to identify the data.” Ans. 5 (citing Zhou ¶ 36). Further, the Examiner identifies that the function of the export module is taught by Zhou’s teaching of sending the data to the replicate server. Ans. 5. The Examiner states that the modules of the second replication connector are not claimed as doing anything and if they had, they would be met by Zhou’s teaching of receiving the data at the replicate server. Ans. 6 (citing Zhou ¶ 38). Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 18. Each of these claims recite a limitation directed to a content replication server being connected to a first content replication connector and a second content replication connector, and that each of the content replication connectors contain an import Appeal 2021-001404 Application 15/381,567 6 module, export module, and a read content replication module. As discussed above, the Examiner relies upon Zhou’s disclosure of their being multiple replication servers, discussed in Zhou paragraph 27 and the disclosed functionalities of replicating data from one server to another, discussed in paragraphs 36 and 38, to demonstrate that Zhuo teaches the two connector modules. We do not find that the cited teachings demonstrate Zhou teaches two connector modules as claimed. Zhou’s teachings in paragraphs 36 through 38 discuss the steps, depicted in Zhou’s Figure 3, which are performed by the replication agent, item 102 in Figure 1, not the replication server (see Zhou ¶ 35). The Examiner has not shown, nor do we find, that Zhou teaches that there are more than one replication agent. The Examiner’s citation to paragraph 27 demonstrates that there may be more than one replication server but not more than one replication agent. As such, the Examiner has not sufficiently demonstrated on this record that the combination of Zhou and Raghunathan teaceh or suggest all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 18. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 18 and dependent claims 7 through 9, 16, 17, 19, and 20 which are similarly rejected based upon the teachings of Zhou and Raghunathan. The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 3 through 6 and 11 through 15 similarly rely upon the teachings of Zhou and Raghunathan to teach the limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 18. Final Act. 9-12. Further, the Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of Kuchibhotla, Sheive, Shaffer, or Gutfleisch make up for the deficiencies noted above in the rejection of the independent claims. Accordingly, we Appeal 2021-001404 Application 15/381,567 7 similarly do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3 through 6 and 11 through 15. CONCLUSION We reverse the decision of the Examiner. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7-10, 16-20 103 Zhou, Raghunathan 1, 7-10, 16-20 2, 11 103 Zhou, Raghunathan, Kuchibhotla 2, 11 4, 13 103 Zhou, Raghunathan, Sheive 4, 13 5, 6, 14, 15 103 Zhou, Raghunathan, Shaffer 5, 6, 14, 15 3, 12 103 Zhou, Raghunathan, Kuchibhotla, Gutfleisch 3, 12 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED