Ex Parte Bermender et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 5, 2012

10981286 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 5, 2012)

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.
10/981,286 11/04/2004 Pamela Ann Bermender AUS920040722US1 6587
48916 7590 09/05/2012
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
EXAMINER
NOFAL, CHRISTOPHER P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PAMELA ANN BERMENDER, HUNG DINH,
TENG HU, and SHARON DOLLE SCHEFFLER
____________________

Appeal 2010-0043401
Application 10/981,286
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and JEAN R.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corp. (App.
Br. 3.)

Appeal 2010-004340
Application 10/981,286

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20. (App. Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for transforming and
loading data from a data source defined by metadata of a first format type
into data for a data target defined by metadata of a second format type based
on a business rule template definition and a business rule set. (Specification
¶¶ [0019], [0020], Fig. 1.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:

1. A method for dynamic transform and load of data
from a data source defined by metadata into a data store defined
by metadata, comprising:

creating a business rule set based on:

a business rule template definition,

a first format type of data and metadata defining at
least a portion of data of a data source, and

a second format type of data and metadata defining
a data store that is stored separately from the data
source;

Appeal 2010-004340
Application 10/981,286

3
transforming data and corresponding metadata of the first
format type from the data source into data and corresponding
metadata of the second format type based on the business rule
set;

loading the transformed data and corresponding metadata
of the second format type into the data store based on the
business rule set; and

repeating the transforming and loading until all desired
transforming and loading of data and metadata from the data
source to the data store has been accomplished.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Ellis US 6,195,662 B1 Feb. 27, 2001

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ellis.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, pages 15-16.
Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Ellis describes transforming metadata of a first format type into
metadata of a second format type based on a set of business rules set forth in
a business rule template definition, as recited representative claim 1?
Appeal 2010-004340
Application 10/981,286

4
Appellants argue that Ellis is only directed to a single type of
metadata, which is used for exporting the source data into the target data,
whereas the claim calls for two types of metadata for the source data and a
the target data. (App. Br. 15.) Appellants also argue that the Examiner has
failed to address such distinctions between Ellis and the claimed invention.
(Id.) Additionally, Appellants argue that Ellis’s disclosure of a set of
business rules of programming does not describe the claimed “business rule
template definition.” (Id.)
In response, the Examiner finds that because Ellis discloses an
ODBC-enabled database as the Import Data Source that supports a first type
of data/metadata format, which is entirely different from the delimited flat
files (data/metadata) supported by Export Data Target, Ellis describes the
disputed limitations. (Ans. 12-14.) Further, the Examiner finds that Ellis’s
disclosure of a format control language upon which the rule sets are based
describes the business rule template definition as loosely defined in
Appellants’ Specification. (Id. at 15-16.)
On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation. We note at the outset that Appellants have not addressed the
specific findings made by the Examiner in the Answer. As set forth above,
while the Examiner relies upon Ellis’s disclosure of transforming
data/metadata between two different types of databases to describe the
disputed recitation of the two types of data/metadata formats recited in
representative claim 1, Appellants merely argue that Ellis’s disclosure of a
single metadata, and not the evidence for the two types of metadata
Appeal 2010-004340
Application 10/981,286

5
proffered by the Examiner. Similarly, while the Examiner relies upon Ellis’s
disclosure of a format control language that defines types of business rules
to describe the recitation of a business rule template definition, Appellants
merely argue that programming rules do not describe the cited limitation.
Because these arguments do not squarely address the Examiner’s findings,
we find them unresponsive. We are satisfied that Appellants have been
given full and fair notice of the teachings of the Ellis reference, as further
clarified by the Examiner in the “Response to Argument” section of the
Answer (See Ans. 12-15). Appellants are therefore responsible for all that is
disclosed by the collective teachings of the Ellis reference. See In re Zenitz,
333 F.2d 924, 926 (CCPA 1964). “They are part of the literature of the art,
relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)).
Further, we have previously held that "[i]f an appellant fails to present
arguments on a particular issue … the Board will not, as a general matter,
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citations
omitted). Consequently, because Appellants’ non-responsive arguments are
ineffective in demonstrating error in the Examiner’s prima facie case to
establish the patentability of the claims on appeal, we find Appellants have
failed to rebut the Examiner’s rejection of the claims 1-20 with any
persuasive analysis. See Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8
(BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative.) For at least the aforementioned
reasons, we find Appellants have not sustained the requisite burden on
Appeal 2010-004340
Application 10/981,286

6
appeal of providing arguments or evidence persuasive of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, and claims 8, and 15 grouped
therewith.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, Appellants reiterate the
language of the respective claims and rely upon the same arguments
presented for representative claim 1above. (App. Br. 15-16.) See Ex parte
Belinne. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 fall for the reasons set forth in our
discussion of claims 1, 8, and 11 above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 as set forth above.
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

pgc