Ex Parte Bross et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2013

10495634 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WOLFGANG BROSS, NORBERT HEUMUELLER,
and FRITZ OESTERLE
____________

Appeal 2011-002375
Application 10/495,634
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002375
Application 10/495,634

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 19, 21-23, 25-29, and 35. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-based method comprising:
exchanging, by a first transaction-tax-related application
executed by a computer, transaction-related data with at least a
second transaction-tax-related application according to a
standardized transaction-tax interface data model, wherein the
first transaction-tax-related application uses a first application-
specific data model; and
mapping between data elements of the first application-
specific data model and corresponding data elements of the
standardized transaction-tax interface data model,
wherein the standardized transaction-tax interface data
model is defined so as to provide data elements at least for a first
jurisdiction and a second jurisdiction, wherein the standardized
transaction-tax interface data model has at least one first data
element which is used for transaction tax calculation in the first
jurisdiction, but is not used for transaction tax calculation in the
second jurisdiction, and at least one second data element which is
used for transaction tax calculation in the second jurisdiction, but
is not used for transaction tax calculation in the first jurisdiction.

Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 19, 21-23, 25-29, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 2003/0093320 A1; pub. May
15, 2003) and Cox (US 2003/0061061 A1; pub. Mar. 27, 2003).

Appeal 2011-002375
Application 10/495,634

3
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the prior art does
not disclose a standardized transaction-tax interface data model having at
least one first data element which is used for transaction tax calculation in
the first jurisdiction but not used for transaction tax calculation in the second
jurisdiction?

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the prior art does not disclose a
standardized transaction-tax interface data model having at least one first
data element which is used for transaction tax calculation in the first
jurisdiction but not used for transaction tax calculation in the second
jurisdiction. We agree.
The Examiner recognizing that Sullivan does not disclose a
standardized transaction-tax interface data model having at least one first
data element which is used for transaction tax calculation in the first
jurisdiction but not used for transaction tax calculation in the second
jurisdiction, relies on paragraph [0027] of Cox for teaching this subject
matter.
We find that paragraph [0027] of Cox discloses a uniform data model
that addresses the need for a standard interface to facilitate interaction in a
heterogeneous environment. However, Cox does not disclose data elements
used for tax calculations in a first jurisdiction that are not used for tax
calculations in a second jurisdiction. Cox merely describes a uniform data
interface to facilitate communication among different applications (para.
[0005]).
Appeal 2011-002375
Application 10/495,634

4
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1. We will likewise not sustain the rejection as to the remaining
claims because each of the claims includes similar subject matter.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh