Anthony Friebel et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 26, 2019

14625437 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2019)

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.
14/625,437 02/18/2015 Anthony L. Friebel 094926-0927473-001620US 9854
110577 7590 12/26/2019
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
SAS Institute Inc.
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
KE, PENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2019 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY L. FRIEBEL and THOMAS WARREN COX
Appeal 2019-006865
Reissue Application 14/625,437
Patent 8,756,495
Technology Center 3900
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–2, 4–10, 12–18, 20–43, 45–65, 67–
72, 74–88, 90–111, 113–134, and 136–149 in the application for reissue of
U.S. Patent 8,756,495. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAS Institute Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006865
Reissue Application 14/625,437
Patent 8,756,495

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention “relates generally to computer-implemented
data conversions and more particularly to tagged and rectangular data
processing.” Spec., col. 1, ll. 12–15.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for transforming a first data file, including a
hierarchically arranged tagged input data structure, to an output
data structure in rectangular format, using a mapping
specification in a second data file for use in a procedure, the
system comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more computer readable storage mediums
containing instructions to cause the one or more processors to
perform operations including:
generating the second data file, wherein the second data
file includes the mapping specification, wherein the mapping
specification:
includes one or more data directives that indicate
relationship between data in the first data file, wherein
the data directives are used to parse content from the first
data file and to format the parsed content into rectangular
formatted data, wherein the data directives include one or
more XPath specifications specifying data items and
locations associated with the data items that are to be
extracted from hierarchically arranged tagged input data
for use in generating output data in rectangular format,
is based on rectangularization characteristics for
the hierarchically arranged tagged input data, wherein the
rectangularization characteristics are based on one or
more data relationships between one or more parent tags
and one or more child tags, wherein each parent tag is
associated with two or more child tags and wherein each
association between a parent tag and two or more child
Appeal 2019-006865
Reissue Application 14/625,437
Patent 8,756,495

3
tags forms a single corresponding table specific to that
association, and
identifies a single table corresponding to each data
relationship between a parent tag and one or more child
tags, wherein the format of the single table is determined
using the data directives;
receiving a set of program instructions including:
an indication of a location of the first data
file, the first data file including a hierarchically
arranged tagged input data structure in non-
rectangular format configured to be transformed
into rectangular format;
an indication of a location of the second data
file, the second data file different than the first data
file;
a libname statement identifying the first data
file, the second data file, and an XML libname
engine; and
an indication of a procedure to process a
data file and an indication of the data file to
process, wherein the procedure requires data in
rectangular format and the indication of the data
file to process indicates the first data file in non-
rectangular format;
using the indication of the location of the first data
file to access the first data file;
displaying the tagged input data in a graphical
interface;
receiving, through the graphical interface, an
interaction with the tagged input data;
transforming the first data file to an output data
structure in rectangular format compatible with the
procedure, by:
parsing the hierarchically arranged tagged
input data in accordance with the data directives,
including the one or more XPath specifications;
generating the output data structure in
rectangular format by assembling the parsed
Appeal 2019-006865
Reissue Application 14/625,437
Patent 8,756,495

4
hierarchically arranged tagged input data into
rectangular format; and
generating an output of the procedure using
the output data structure in rectangular format; and
coordinating bi-directional communication
between a software application that uses a hierarchical
data format and a software application that uses a
rectangularized data format, wherein coordinating bi-
directional communication includes using the single table
and the output data structure.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Newman US 6,976,212 B2 Dec. 13, 2008
Rys US 8,140,496 B2 Mar. 20, 2012
Jensen US 6,834,276 B1 Dec. 21, 2004
Joshi US 6,532,427 B1 Mar. 11, 2003

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–18, 20–43, 45–65, 67–
72, 74–88, 90–111, 113–134, 136–139, 141–143, 145–147, and 149 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Newmans, Rys, and Jensen. Final Act.
6–22.
The Examiner rejected claims 140, 144, and 148 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Newmans, Rys, Jensen, and Joshi. Final Act. 22.

Appeal 2019-006865
Reissue Application 14/625,437
Patent 8,756,495

5
ANALYSIS
THE 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION BASED ON NEWMAN, RYS, AND JENSEN
Claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–18, 20–43, 45–65, 67–72, 74–88, 90–111, 113–134,
136–139, 141–143, 145, 146, 147, and 149
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in concluding that claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–18, 20–43, 45–65, 67–72, 74–
88, 90–111, 113–134, 136–139, 141–143, 145–147, and 149 are
unpatentable over Newman, Rys, and Jensen.
The Examiner finds that Rys teaches “a libname statement identifying
the first data file, the second data file, and an XML libname engine,” as
recited in claim 1. See Ans. 8. In particular, the Examiner explains that Rys
describes “the conversion between files in a XML environment that uses
XML libname engines” and “the use of query libname in a XML
environment.” Ans. 8 (citing Rys Fig. 3, item 313; fig. 4A, item 404; col. 6,
lines 20-35; col. 7, lines 10-20; col. 8, lines 5–25).
Appellant, on the other hand, argues that none of the cited prior art,
including Rys, teaches the recited libname and libname engine. Appeal
Br. 25. For Example, Appellant asserts that “neither Rys nor any of the
other cited references teaches using an ‘XML libname engine’ as asserted by
the Examiner.” Reply br. 6. According to Appellant, “[s]ince Jensen (and
Newman and Rys) do not describe or reference a libname statement or an
XML libname engine at all, it couldn't possibly disclose this limitation.”
Appeal Br. 25. Moreover, Appellant explains “the Examiner's Answer is
purely conclusory; it provides no additional details regarding how Rys
Appeal 2019-006865
Reissue Application 14/625,437
Patent 8,756,495

6
discloses an ‘XML libname engine’ or ‘a libname statement’ as claimed, or
how those items are used.” Reply Br. 7.
We agree. The Examiner makes a general conclusion alone that Rys
teachings the disputed libname statement limitation. Rys generally describes
using a query processor to generate a query plan that includes metaproperty
information. See Rys col. 7, lines 10-20, col. 8, lines 5–25). However,
without further explanation, we are left to speculate as to how the cited
combination describes the recited libname statement limitation of claim 1
and, as such, are persuaded that the Examiner does not sufficiently explain
how Rys at least suggests the disputed libname statement limitation.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record to find that the Examiner
erred in concluding Newman, Rys, and Jensen teaches the libname statement
limitation of Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 9, 17, 25, 47, 69, 92,
and 115 include limitations of commensurate scope.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–18, 20–43, 45–65, 67–72, 74–
88, 90–111, 113–134, 136–139, 141–143, 145, 146, 147, and 149 as
unpatentable over Newman, Rys, and Jensen.

THE 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION BASED ON
NEWMAN, RYS, JENSEN, AND JOSHI
Claims 140, 144, and 148
Claims 140, 144, and 148 depend from claims 69, 92, and 115
respectively. As discussed above, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claims 140, 144, and 148 as unpatentable over
Appeal 2019-006865
Reissue Application 14/625,437
Patent 8,756,495

7
Newman, Rys, and Jensen. Joshi does not cure these deficiencies. As such,
we similarly are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 140,
144, and 148 as unpatentable over Newman, Rys, Jensen, and Joshi, and we
do not sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(pre-AIA) of
claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–18, 20–43, 45–65, 67–72, 74–88, 90–111, 113–134,
and 136–149 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–10, 12–18,
20–43, 45–65, 67–
72, 74–88, 90–
111, 113–134,
136–139, 141–
143, 145, 146,
147, 149
103 Newman,
Rys, Jensen
1, 2, 4–10, 12–
18, 20–43, 45–
65, 67–72, 74–
88, 90–111,
113–134, 136–
139, 141–143,
145, 146, 147,
149
140, 144, 148 103 Newman,
Rys, Jensen,
Joshi
140, 144, 148
Overall Outcome 1–2, 4–10, 12–
18, 20–43, 45–
65, 67–72, 74–
88, 90–111,
113–134, 136–
149
Appeal 2019-006865
Reissue Application 14/625,437
Patent 8,756,495

8

REVERSED