Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 15, 2021

2021000061 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 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.
14/251,878 04/14/2014 Stefan Andreas Blumer TRTA(CSS)-018-US 7679
90879 7590 04/15/2021
Thomson Reuters c/o Intellectual Property
3 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
EXAMINER
SHEIKH, ASFAND M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2021 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):
IPDocketing@clarivate.com
IPDocketing@thomsonreuters.com
docketing@thomsonreuters.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEFAN ANDREAS BLUMER,
JENNIFER HUNSICKER,
NEELIMA KASA,
RICHARD ALLEN PADUR,
and JACOB LAUX TABER
____________

Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Stefan Andreas Blumer, Jennifer Hunsicker, Neelima Kasa, Richard
Allen Padur, and Jacob Laux Taber (Appellant2) seek review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 12, and 13, the
only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way to perform flexible field mapping
between disparate systems, by abstracting the hierarchical structure of the
data in the disparate systems for calculating one or more tax values
responsive to the combined request based on the one or more data items.
Specification paras. 6–8.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A computer-implemented method for flexible field mapping,
the method comprising:
[1] receiving a transaction request associated with a source data
object having one or more source data fields,
wherein the one or more source data fields specify specific
fields within the source data object to be mapped in order
to execute the transaction request;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed April 20, 2020) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 17,
2020), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 19, 2019).
2 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 Thomson
Reuters Enterprise Centre (Appeal Br. 2).

Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878

3

[2] identifying a base mapping between the source data object
having one or more source data fields and a target data object
having one or more target data fields,
wherein the source data object is located in a first system
and the target data object is located in a second system;
[3] generating a base mapping request,
the base mapping request comprising the identified base
mapping between the source data object having one or
more source data fields and the target data object having
one or more target data fields;
[4] generating a field mapping request,
the field mapping request comprising a field mapping
between a given source data field and a given target data
field,
the given source data field being a specific field within the
source data object to be mapped in order to execute the
transaction request;
[5] identifying one or more data items from the target data object
responsive to the base mapping request and the field mapping
request;
[6] generating a combined request based on the base mapping
request and the field mapping request,
the combined request comprising the one or more data
items responsive to the base mapping request and the field
mapping request,
said one or more data items comprising one or more tax
rates;
[7] automatically structuring applicable source code stored in a
mapping database into an automatically generated computer
code request for each of the base mapping request, the field
mapping request, and the combined mapping request,
wherein each of the base mapping request, the field
mapping request, and the combined mapping request
comprise the corresponding automatically generated
computer code request,
Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878

4

wherein the automatically generated computer code of the
base mapping request comprises mapping instructions for
mapping the source data object to the target data object,
wherein the automatically generated computer code of the
field mapping request comprises mapping instructions for
mapping the given source data field to the given target data
field,
and
wherein the automatically generated computer code of the
combined mapping request comprises instructions for
executing at least a portion of the requested transaction
based on the one or more data items identified from the
target data object responsive to the base mapping request
and the field mapping request;
[8] transmitting the combined request to a target memory [;]3
[9] calculating one or more tax values responsive to the
combined request based on the one or more data items;
[10] transmitting the one or more tax values responsive to the
combined request to a source memory;
and
[11] storing the one or more tax values responsive to the
combined request in the source data object maintained in the
source memory.

3 The amendment filed March 19, 2019 deleted a period, but did not insert
replacement punctuation such as a semicolon. The intent, based on the
paragraphing of claim 1, originally filed claim 2, and Appellant’s arguments
in the Brief appears to be that the following limitation 9 is separate from
limitation 8 and not meant to be part of limitation 8, suggesting this
omission of punctuation is an oversight. We interpret the claim as including
a semicolon at this position to separate limitations 8 and 9.
Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878

5

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Lindsay US 6,694,338 B1 Feb. 17, 2004
Weedon US 7,681,184 B1 Mar. 16, 2010
Bross US 2005/0055290 A1 Mar. 10, 2005
Harken US 2005/0251533 A1 Oct. 10, 2005
Talan US 2008/0147528 A1 June 19, 2008
Claims 1, 5, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, and Weedon.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, Weedon, and Official
Notice.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes
calculating tax values.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Talan
01. Talan is directed to automatically inserting account data into a
tax form. Talan para. 3.
02. Talan describes a mapping system that accepts chart of accounts
and tax-forms as input and then identifies key data-elements
associated with chart of account and tax-forms. Next, the
Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878

6

mapping system identifies a data-map that maps the account-data
to tax-forms and is associated with the key data-elements. Then,
mapping system applies this data-map to chart of accounts and
tax-forms to create completed tax-forms. Talan para. 37.
03. Talan describes a mapping system that applies the data-map to
the account-data to produce completed tax-forms by inserting the
account-data into tax-forms using the data-map. Talan para. 42.
04. Talan describes a mapping system that combines subsets of the
account-data by applying mathematical operations to the subsets
of account-data, for example by adding wages paid to full-time
employees and wages paid to part-time employees together and
inserting the result into tax-forms. Talan para. 46.
Bross
05. Bross is directed to processing information in transaction-tax-
related applications. Bross para. 1.
06. Bross describes completing missing data needed in a transaction-
tax-related application, using completing rules which define,
depending on which missing data needs to be completed, what
further data might be considered for deriving the missing data. It
does this by receiving a completing request; evaluating at least
one completing rule associated with a missing data while using the
further data defined as within this completing rule, and returning
the completed data if it could be derived from the further data.
Bross para. 8.
Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878

7

07. Bross describes the general requirements for a transaction tax
processing system as including calculating the transaction tax.
Bross para. 34.
08. Bross describes a calculation request that initiates the transaction
tax calculation and calculates the transaction tax on the basis of
the parameters received from the calculation request. Bross
para. 53.
09. Bross describes rules requested for a specific transaction tax
calculation as being transmitted from a content service to the
calculation service. Bross para. 55.
10. Bross describes mapping the parameters delivered in a request
into the data format and model internally used by the transaction
tax (TT) calculation system. If numerous different external
applications all having different output parameters (data elements
“net price,” “tax rate,” etc.) used the basic and micro services, a
corresponding number of different data mapping micro services
would have to be invoked by the OT calculation service 24 for
proper communication with these applications. Bross para. 71.
11. Bross describes the data model used for communication between
external applications and basic and micro services as well as
between different basic and micro services being standardized,
and is referred to as a tax object. The use of a standardized data
model eliminates the need for complicated interface structures
since now each interface only needs to implement a data mapping
of the internally used data model to the standardized data model
and vice versa. In other words, each service only receives data
Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878

8

implemented in the standardized data model object irrespective of
the application sending these data and, in turn, delivers only data
in the standardized data model to any other application/service.
Bross para. 72.
Lindsay
12. Lindsay is directed to representation and translation of electronic
documents. Lindsay 1:5–6.
13. Lindsay describes a MapTo code that, given the value of the
virtual field, populates the ParticipatingFields and a MapFrom
code that, given the ParticipatingFields, produces the value of the
virtual aggregate field. Lindsay 3:14–17.
14. Lindsay describes mapping from location(s) in the source
document to a virtual aggregate field in the target document. A
virtual aggregate field in a target document is treated just like any
other field. Whatever operations--move, or any other
manipulation rule that might be applied to other fields--apply to
virtual aggregate fields. Lindsay 3:22–28.
15. Lindsay describes a virtual field that corresponds to a field in the
source and target groups being used to capture common
abstractions using meta-data. For example, meta-data associated
with the source document can be used by the mapping engine to
define one or more aggregate virtual fields. After the aggregate
virtual fields are defined, the mapping engine applies mapping
rules to the meta-data associated with the source group, including
the aggregate virtual fields, to automatically generate a transform.
The transform is then provided to the translation engine, which
Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878

9

uses the transform to convert the source document into the target
document. Lindsay 5:39–53.
Harken
16. Harken is directed to integration processes. Harken para. 26.
17. Harken describes the source data integration job having a source
native format, and the target data integration job having a target
native format. Harken para. 34.
Weedon
18. Weedon is directed to cross language type system compatibility.
Weedon 1:22–24.
19. Weedon claim 1 recites
A system for translation of data types between a first
application in a first language and a second application in
a second language, the system comprising: a computer
having at least one processor and a memory configured to
generate: a formal mapping between data types of the first
language and data types of the second language;
translators for translating data types between the first
language and the second language based on the formal
mapping; a translation mapping to the translators based on
actual data types of the first application and formal data
types of the second application; and a module for
automatically selecting an appropriate translator for
translating between a particular data type in the first
language and a data types in the second language based on
the translation mapping in response to invocation of a
method of the first application with the particular data
type, wherein the module for selecting the appropriate
translator is configured to perform at least a two-level
lookup in the translation mapping to select the appropriate
translator, wherein a first level of the two-level lookup
includes a lookup of a full inheritance hierarchy of the
actual type to determine a candidate set of translators and,
wherein a second level lookup of the two-level lookup
Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878

10

includes a lookup based on a formal data type of the
second application and selection of an appropriate
translator from the candidate set of translators determined
by the first level of the two-level lookup.
Weedon Claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5, and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103as unpatentable over
Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, and Weedon
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
the application of applying a data map to a tax form, according
to Talan, simply involves inserting account-data in a tax.
Insertion of account data into a form is not the same claimed
calculation of a tax value. The Examiner further relies on Talan’s
discussion of “ ... applying the data-map can involve performing
an operation on the account-data.” However, performing an
operation as discussed in Talan is limited to “... applying
mathematical operations to the subsets of account-data. For
example, mapping system 230 may add wages paid to full-time
employees and wages paid to part-time employees together and
then may insert the result into tax-forms 220.” Performing a
mathematical operation on account-data, however, is not the
same as calculating a tax value based on translated tax rates
obtained from a separate electronic system. Accordingly,
Appellants submit that Talan, as well as the remaining prior art
of record, fails to teach or suggest and is otherwise silent with
regard to “calculating one or more tax values responsive to the
combined request based on the one or more data items” where
the one or more data items comprise “one or more tax rates” as
recited in independent claims 1, 5 and 9.
Appeal Br. 9 (citations omitted). As the Examiner responds
Talan discloses the mapping system applies the data-map to the
account-data to produce completed tax-forms. The [Examiner]
further notes Talan discloses in one embodiment of the present
invention, applying the data-map can involve performing an
operation on the account-data. These operations can include
Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878

11

combining subsets of the account-data by applying mathematical
operations to the subsets of account-data. The examiner notes
the producing a completed tax-form involves applying
mathematical operations to the subsets of account-data, which
reads on calculating one or more tax values responsive to the
combined request based on the one or more data items, as wages
paid to full-time employees and part-time employees would
incur different tax calculations in order to produce a completed
tax form. Nonetheless, Bross was shown to teach said one or
more data items comprise one or more tax rates and calculating
one or more tax values responsive ... to the one or more data item,
as Bross states: If numerous different external applications all
having different output parameters (data elements “net price”,
“tax rate”, etc.) used the basic and micro services, a
corresponding number of different data mapping micro services
would have to be invoked by the OT calculation service 24 for
proper communication with these applications. Therefore the
examiner notes the combination of Talan in view of Bross, in
combination [sic], make[s] it clear that the cited references
calculating one or more tax values responsive to the combined
request based on the one or more data items
Ans. 3–4 (citations omitted). The limitation at issue is “calculating one or
more tax values responsive to the combined request based on the one or
more data items.” Claim 1, limitation 9. The one or more data items include
a tax rate. Claim 1 limitations 5 and 6.
Both Talan and Bross describe performing calculations in a tax
system. Bross in particular computes transaction taxes, which by definition
generally are based on transaction tax rates. As the Examiner determines,
Bross even explicitly describes outputting tax rates in a data mapping for a
tax calculation. See above. It is difficult to imagine a tax system that would
not perform calculations based on tax rates, so this is also at least predictable
to one of ordinary skill.
Appellant presents no other arguments.
Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878

12

Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, Weedon, and Official Notice
This rejection is not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, and Weedon is proper.
The rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Talan, Bross, Lindsay, Harken, Weedon, and Official
Notice is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 12, and 13 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 9 103 Talan, Bross,
Lindsay,
Harken,
Weedon
1, 5, 9
3, 4, 7, 8, 12,
13
103 Talan, Bross,
Lindsay,
Harken,
Weedon,
Official
Notice
3, 4, 7, 8, 12,
13

Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 7–9,
12, 13

Appeal 2021-000061
Application 14/251,878

13

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED