Ex Parte Buchmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

13333224 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/333,224 12/21/2011
50400 7590 06/01/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Daniel Buchmann
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2058.63lUS1 1201
EXAMINER
ALLEN, NICHOLAS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL BUCHMANN, THOMAS MUELLER,
HANS-MARTIN LUDWIG, FLORIAN KRESSER,
THOMAS FINKE, and KARL FUERST
Appeal2014-009383
Application 13/333,224 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to tagging data, including
integrating tagging data with the object data described by the tagging data to
increase the overall functionality of the object data. See Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP AG. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009383
Application 13/333,224
is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below
with emphasis added to highlight a disputed limitation.
1. A method, comprising:
accessing a first data object that is employed in a first
computer application;
accessing tagging data that is descriptive of the first data
object;
storing the tagging data in the first data object; and
processing, using at least one processor, the tagging data
and the first data object using a second computer application.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gopalakrishnan et al.
(US 2010/0017378 Al; publ. Jan. 21, 2010) (hereinafter "Gopalakrishnan")
and Goldentouch (US 2009/0254529 Al; publ. Oct. 8, 2009), collectively
referred to as the "combination."
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the October 30, 2013 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-13),
(2) the December 6, 2013 Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and (3) the July 3,
2014 Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-5). We incorporate such findings,
conclusions, and reasons herein by reference unless otherwise noted. We,
2
Appeal2014-009383
Application 13/333,224
however, highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for
emphasis.
(1) Storing the tagging data
Appellants argue the combination, and Goldentouch in particular,
fails to teach or suggest "storing the tagging data in the first data object," as
recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 2. As to the claim language,
Appellants assert (i) a "first data object" can be "a database, computer
memory, or any other type of data storage element," and (ii) "tagging data is
descriptive of the first data object." See App. Br. 14. Appellants further
assert tagging data also "must be stored 'separate from the original data "' in
light of the Specification and the claim language (i.e., tagging data is
accessed and stored in the first data object). See App. Br. 14--15 (citing
Spec. i-f 3); Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec. i-fi-13, 16). In addition, Appellants argue
because "tagging data is conventionally stored 'separate from the original
data,' a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to store
tagging data in the corresponding data object." See App. Br. 15.
As to Goldentouch, Appellants contend it "does not disclose or
suggest storing data that is descriptive of an object [(i.e., tagging data)] and
stored 'separate from the original data' into the data object." See App. Br.
15. Specifically, Appellants contend Goldentouch's teaching of storing an
object in a database does not teach "storing an object in a data object." See
App. Br. 13-14 (citing Goldentouch i-f 341). Appellants also contend
associating metadata with an object "is not equivalent to tagging data stored
in a first data object (where tagging data is descriptive of the first data
object)." See App. Br. 13-14 (citing Goldentouch i-f 138).
3
Appeal2014-009383
Application 13/333,224
The Examiner finds (i) Gopalakrishnan and Goldentouch are properly
combined and (ii) the combination, and Goldentouch in particular, teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 4; Adv. Act. 2.
The Examiner finds "it would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify
Gopalakrishnan with the teachings of Goldentouch to include storing the
tagging data in the first data object. This would have improved tagging
capabilities." Final Act. 3.
As to Goldentouch, the Examiner finds it "teaches identification tags
of marked objects may be stored in a database and enable easy association
between the attributes of marked objects and the objects stored as content."
See Ans. 4 (citing Goldentouch i-f 341 ). The Examiner also finds it is
obvious "for an object to have data residing in the object which is
descriptive of' it, and "data object[ s] to have various fields/types and
attributes." Adv. Act. 2.
As to making the combination, we find Appellants' arguments
unpersuasive and find the Examiner provides "articulated reasoning [(i.e.,
improved tagging capabilities)] with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006); see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)
("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
In addition, we are not persuaded that combining Gopalakrishnan and
Goldentouch in the manner proffered by the Examiner is "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog
4
Appeal2014-009383
Application 13/333,224
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner the combination teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. We first tum to the claim language and
find a database record is an example of a first data object. See Spec. i-fi-f 16
(explaining a first data object is "for example, a business or general-purpose
record or file"), 37, 38 (stating data objects can be stored in a database and
can be structured data, such as predefined fields of a record). Furthermore,
we disagree with Appellants' argument that "accessing" requires more than
obtaining or retrieving tagging data under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term in light of the Specification. We disagree with
Appellants that the claim language requires tagging data to be stored to the
extent Appellants' impart a narrower construction for this term. See In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding "the name of the
game is the claim"); In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (stating
limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability).
As to Goldentouch, we find it teaches or suggests storing the tagging
data (e.g., obtained descriptive tags, attributes, meta data) in the first data
object (i.e., a database record). See Goldentouch i-fi-1341 ("[The
identification tags of marked objects may [be] stored in a database and
enable easy association between the attributes of marked objects and the
objects stored as content."), 138 (teaching metadata may be added to
elements). We also agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the
art would find it obvious to store tags, and other descriptive data, as fields in
5
Appeal2014-009383
Application 13/333,224
the database record along with the content to enable easy association
therewith. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
(2) Receiving a data object model
Appellants argue the combination, and Goldentouch in particular,
fails to teach or suggest "receiving a data object model integrating
definitions of data object types and definitions of tagging data types to be
associated with the data object types, the data object model defining the
storage of the tagging data in the first data object," as recited in claim 11.
See App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 4--5. The Examiner finds Goldentouch discloses
this disputed limitation. See Ans. 5 (citing Goldentouch i-f 341 ).
We have addressed Appellants' arguments concerning this disputed
limitation above. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 11.
CONCLUSION
Appellants did not provide separate arguments for the patentability of
the remaining claims on appeal, which were the subject of this same
rejection, and, thus, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6