10854929 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2010)

Ex Parte Brunswig et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 8, 2010

10854929 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2010)

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. 10/854,929 05/27/2004 Frank Brunswig 09700.0017-00 7355 22852 7590 09/09/2010 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/09/2010 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 FRANK BRUNSWIG, JOSEF DIETL, and JOHANNES VIEGENER __________ Appeal 2009-002174 Application 10/854,929 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAY P. LUCAS, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-002174 Application 10/854,929 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-21. Claim 5 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The disclosed invention relates generally to dynamic meta data (Spec. 1). Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer program product, tangibly embodied in an information carrier, for enabling dynamic meta data, the computer program product being operable to cause data processing apparatus to: associate a meta data element with a meta data element attribute; calculate a value for the meta data element attribute in response to a request associated with the meta data element; and calculate compatibility between a front end and a back end based on the meta data element attribute. The Reference The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence in support of the rejections: Rasmussen EP 1081609 A2 Mar. 07, 2001 The Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1-4 and 6-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over Rasmussen. Appeal 2009-002174 Application 10/854,929 3 ISSUE Appellants assert that Rasmussen “fails to teach or suggest each and every element of claim 1” (App. Br. 12). Did the Examiner err in finding that Rasmussen discloses each and every element of claim 1? FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Rasmussen discloses a metadata model and that a “user interface 25 is layered on top of the metadata model 15” (col. 6, ll. 45-46). 2. Rasmussen discloses that the metadata model includes a “data access layer” that “contains a part of the model objects that directly describe actual physical data in the data sources 100 and their relationships” (col. 8, ll. 15-17). 3. Rasmussen discloses that the metadata model also includes “business model objects [that] consist of a business model, business rules and display rules” (col. 9, ll. 13-14). 4. Rasmussen discloses that “attributes in the business layer 104 correspond to columns in the data access layer 102” (col. 9, ll. 26- 27). Appeal 2009-002174 Application 10/854,929 4 5. Rasmussen discloses “a user’s request for information” and a “query that can be executed against the [underlying] data sources, e.g., a relational database” (col. 7, ll. 5-8). PRINCIPLES OF LAW 35 U.S.C. § 102 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). ANALYSIS As described above, Rasmussen discloses a metadata model that stores metadata from various data sources and that includes both a data access layer and a business layer in which the business layer contains business model objects that are “closely related to the data access model objects in the data access layer” (FF 1-4; col. 9, ll. 22-24). Rasmussen also discloses a user request and a query (FF 5). The Examiner finds that Rasmussen discloses a user request that is “associated with a meta data element . . . just by virtue of being in the same system” (Ans. 8). Even assuming that any user’s request to a system is associated with a particular metadata element even if the only “association” is being used on the particular system (as the Examiner states), the Examiner has not demonstrated that Rasmussen discloses calculating a value for a Appeal 2009-002174 Application 10/854,929 5 metadata attribute in response to this user request. Rather, Rasmussen appears to merely disclose that metadata is (previously) stored in a metadata model, the metadata having been received from various data sources or metadata sources (Fig. 2A). In fact, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Rasmussen calculates metadata element attribute data at all much less calculating such information in response to a user request. Rather than calculating a value for a metadata element attribute in response to a user request, the system of Rasmussen appears to merely extract data from a relational database in response to the user request. Similarly, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Rasmussen discloses calculating compatibility between a front end and back end based on the metadata element attribute (the metadata element attribute having been calculated in response to a request associated with a metadata element). Even assuming that a business object and an element in the data access layer correspond to the claimed back and front end, respectively, as the Examiner states, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Rasmussen discloses calculating such compatibility based on the metadata element attribute. While we agree with the Examiner that Rasmussen discloses that business model objects are closely related to the data access model objects in the data access layer, we do not find that Rasmussen discloses that this “close relationship” (or “compatibility”) is calculated based on a metadata element attribute. Nor has the Examiner shown that Rasmussen discloses this feature. Claims 15 and 19 recite similar features as claim 1. Appeal 2009-002174 Application 10/854,929 6 Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 15, and 19, and claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-18, 20, and 21, which depend therefrom. CONCLUSION OF LAW Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that Rasmussen discloses each and every element of claim 1. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). REVERSED msc FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413