12207628 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2017)

Ex Parte Bornhoevd et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 18, 2017

12207628 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2017)

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. 12/207,628 09/10/2008 Christof Bornhoevd 13913-0615001/2008P00153U 1085 32864 7590 05/22/2017 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER MITIKU, BERHANU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2017 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 CHRISTOF BORNHOEVD and HORST WERNER Appeal 2016-007195 Application 12/207,6281 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NABEEL U. KHAN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—5, 7—13, 15, 17, 18 and 20. Claims 6, 14, 16, and 19 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify SAP SE as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4. Appeal 2016-007195 Application 12/207,628 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellants’ invention relates to: assigning a unique identifier to an item in a repository, the item supporting versioning and being subject to a data model having no predefined schema for items. The method includes associating a first attribute with the unique identifier, the first attribute being part of the item and being configured for modification. The method includes associating the first attribute with a version number, wherein the versioning is supported without recording in the repository a time period when the first attribute is valid. Abstract. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A computer program product tangibly embodied in a non- transitory computer-readable storage medium and comprising instructions that when executed by a processor perform a method for recording information about an item, the method comprising: assigning a unique identifier to an item stored in a repository, the item being included in a set of items, the item supporting versioning and being subject to a data model having no selection of predefined schemas for items, such that an appropriate schema can be derived for the item at a given point in time; associating an attribute with the unique identifier of the item, the attribute being part of the item and being configured for modification, wherein the attribute includes a type identifier that defines a status of the attribute for an instance of the item, the status including at least one of mandatory, expected, and optional; associating the attribute with a particular version number of the item during a particular time period of the item, the attribute valid for the particular time period, wherein the versioning is supported without recording in the repository that the attribute is valid for the particular time period; and 2 Appeal 2016-007195 Application 12/207,628 deriving a schema based on information included in items of the set of items, the information comprising the attribute. References and Rejections 1. Claims 1, 3—5, 8—13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gong (US 2003/0004971 Al, Jan. 2, 2003) and Patzer (US 2004/0128391 Al, July 1, 2004). 2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gong, Patzer, and Busayapongchai (US 2004/0254792 Al, Dec. 16, 2004). 3. Claims 7, 15, 17, and 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gong, Patzer, and Watanabe (US 2005/0033828 Al, Feb. 10, 2005). ANALYSIS Claim 1 Claim 1 recites “the attribute valid for the particular time period, wherein the versioning is supported without recording in the repository that the attribute is valid for the particular time period.” The Examiner finds Patzer teaches or suggests this limitation by associating an attribute with a particular version number of the item during a particular period of the item. Final Act. 6 (citing Patzer H 7, 26, Figs. 4 and 6). The Examiner further finds Patzer teaches or suggests that versioning is supported without recording in the repository and that the attribute is valid for the particular time period by teaching that Patzer tracks the attribute is valid for particular time period. Final Act. 6 (citing Patzer 146.) 3 Appeal 2016-007195 Application 12/207,628 Appellants argue: Patzer fails to disclose or render obvious that ‘the version number of the particular item is valid is not recorded in the [first] repository.’ Instead, and as discussed above, Patzer provides that ‘each presence attribute information entry has an identifier field identifying the type of presence attribute, a presence attribute value field, and a validity period field. App. Br. 15 (citing Patzer | 8). We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Patzer discloses a system that tracks whether presence attribute entry is valid for particular periods of time. Patzer 110. Patzer discloses presence attribute information organized in one or more data structures with a validity period field. Patzer | 8. The data structure is stored in a storage unit. Id. Thus, we agree with Appellants’ that because the validity period field of the data structure is stored, Patzer does not teach or suggest “versioning is supported without recording in the repository that the attribute is valid for the particular time period,” as claim 1 recites. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 10, 12, and 18 contain similar limitations. Claims 10 and 18 were rejected on substantially the same basis. See Final Act. 11, 15. Claim 12 was rejected by relying on Gong, however, the Examiner’s findings do not address the portion of the limitation at issue (i.e., time period when association of additional items and version number is valid is not recorded in first repository). See Final Act. 12. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 12, and 18, and for the same reasons do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the claims depending from the aforementioned independent claims. 4 Appeal 2016-007195 Application 12/207,628 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5, 7—13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are reversed. REVERSED 5