Ex Parte Carlucci

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2015

12154018 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CLAUDIO CARLUCCI
____________

Appeal 2012-006914
Application 12/154,018
Technology Center 2162
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

SUMMARY
Appellant
1
appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–5, 7, and 9, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1
The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft of Munich, Germany. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-006914
Application 12/154,018

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant states the invention relates to manufacturing execution
systems having access to different data sources, such as data bases and real
time data sources, and analyzing the data source to depict its structure. See
Spec. page 1, lines 4–19. In the Summary of the Invention, Appellant
further states the following:
There is, therefore, a need for a programmer interface
and a manufacturing execution system for accelerating the
analysis of the structure of a data source of the manufacturing
execution system. Accordingly, one aspect involves a
programmer interface having a query browser, a data structure
means and an execute means. The query browser has query
building means for generating a query. The execute means
provides means for receiving data from the data source
according to the query. The query structure means provides a
structure of the received data based on the query.

See id. lines 21–28.
Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1,
2
which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A manufacturing execution system comprising:
a data source: and
a programmer interface for analyzing the data source;
the programmer interface including a query
browser, an execute means, and a data structure
means;

2
Claims 1 and 9 are argued together. Appeal Br. 7–13.
Appeal 2012-006914
Application 12/154,018

3
the query browser including query building means
for generating a query;

the execute means configured to provide
provides means for receiving data from the data
source according to the query; and

the data structure means configured to
provide a structure of the received data based on
the query;

wherein the query building means are
adapted to generate a query for a heterogeneous
data source, wherein the means for receiving data
from the data source are adapted to receive data
from the heterogeneous data source, and wherein
the data structure means are adapted for providing
a structure corresponding to the heterogeneous
data source.

References

Cohen US 5,847,957 Dec. 8, 1998
Kiernan US 2001/0037345 A1 Published Nov. 1,
2001

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kiernan and Cohen.
Issues on Appeal
The following issues are raised by Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief
3
and Reply Brief
4
:

3
Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, filed on Nov. 16,
2011 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on Jan. 24, 2012
Appeal 2012-006914
Application 12/154,018

4
1. Does the combination of Kiernan and Cohen teach or
suggest generating a query for a heterogeneous data
source, adapting data received from a heterogeneous data
source, and providing a structure corresponding to the
heterogeneous data source, as recited in claim 1?
2. Does the combination of Kiernan and Cohen teach or
suggest generating a query for real time data, wherein the
means for receiving data from the data source are adapted
to receive the real time data, and providing a structure
corresponding to the real time data, as recited in claim 4?
3. Does the combination of Kiernan and Cohen teach or
suggest generating a query for hierarchical data, wherein
the means for receiving data from the data source are
adapted to receive hierarchical data, and providing a
structure corresponding to the hierarchical data, as
recited in claim 5?
4. Does Kiernan teach or suggest “wherein the data source
comprises a data base for a material manager data base

(“Ans.”), Appellant’s Reply Brief, filed on Mar. 19, 2012 (“Reply
Br.”), and the original Specification, filed on May 20, 2008 (“Spec.”).
4
Appellant asserts for the first time in the Reply Br. at 1–2 that the
Examiner’s reason to combine is conclusory and not based on a
proper foundation. This argument is waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011) (second sentence); Ex parte Borden, 93
USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly
interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated
argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a
showing of good cause.”).
Appeal 2012-006914
Application 12/154,018

5
for at least one of a production order manager and a
performance analyzer,” as recited in claim 7?

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants contend neither Kiernan nor Cohen teach a homogeneous
data source and the combination of Kiernan and Cohen does not teach or
suggest generating a query for a heterogeneous data source, adapting data
received from a heterogeneous data source, and providing a structure
corresponding to the heterogeneous data source, as recited in claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 7–13. Citing Figure 3 of Keirnan, the Examiner finds Keirnan
teaches a heterogeneous data source. See Ans. 11–12. The Examiner further
finds Keirnan and Cohen teach the limitations of the “wherein” clause in
issue: (1) generating a query for a heterogeneous data source, wherein the
means for receiving data are adapted to receive data from the heterogeneous
data source, (2) wherein the means for receiving data from the data source
according to the query are adapted to receive data from the heterogeneous
data source , and (3) wherein the data structure means are adapted for
providing a structure corresponding to the heterogeneous data source. See
id.; Keirnan Figures 3, 4, and 6, ¶¶ 50, 68, and 74; Cohen 1:27–32.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Keirnan teaches a
heterogeneous data source. Regarding the construction of the term
“heterogeneous data source,” we note it is not defined in the Specification.
Appellant states manufacturing execution systems usually have to access
different data sources. See Spec. page 1, line 6. The Specification further
Appeal 2012-006914
Application 12/154,018

6
states “[e]xamples of data sources are data bases and real time data sources”
and “[e]xamples of data bases are a material manager data base, a production
order manager data base and a performance analyzer data base.” See id.
page 1, lines 7–9. Appellant acknowledges Kiernan teaches relational data
bases, but asserts “a relational database is not necessarily heterogeneous . .
..” Appeal Br. 8. We conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“heterogeneous data source” to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having
considered Appellant’s Specification and claims, includes data bases storing
diverse information. Here, the Examiner cites Figure 3 of Keirnan as
teaching a heterogeneous data source. See Ans. 12. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding because Figure 3 discloses a department and employee
database, consisting of a department table 300 and an employee table 310,
that stores different or diverse types of data. See Keirnan, Figure 3, ¶ 62.
We also agree that Kiernan teaches the three limitations of the
“wherein” clause of claim 1. First, the top portion of Figure 4 of Keirnan,
which is labelled Query Over the Default View, teaches limitation (1):
generating a query for a heterogeneous data source, wherein the means for
receiving data are adapted to receive data from the heterogeneous data
source. See Kiernan ¶¶ 62 and 63 (“FIG. 4 provides an exemplary XML-
QL query over the Default View of FIG. 3”). Second, the lower portions of
Figure 3, which are labelled Default XML View of the DEPT Table (320)
and Default XML View of the EMP Table (330) teach limitation (2):
wherein the means for receiving data from the data source according to the
query are adapted to receive data from the heterogeneous data source. See
Kiernan ¶ 26 and 50. Third, the lower portion of Figure 4, which is labelled
XML Produced by the Query, and Figure 6 teach limitation (3): wherein the
Appeal 2012-006914
Application 12/154,018

7
data structure means are adapted for providing a structure corresponding to
the heterogeneous data source. See also Kiernan ¶¶ 68 and 74.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For the same
reasons, we also sustain the rejection of claim 9.
Issue 2
Appellant asserts that Kiernan does not mention real time data and
that Kiernan and Cohen do not teach “the means for receiving data from the
data source are adapted to receive real time data,” as recited in claim 4. See
Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner cites paragraphs 50, 85, and 100 of Kiernan
and column 1, lines 27–32 of Cohen as teaching this limitation. See Ans. 3.
We have reviewed the portions of Kiernan and Cohen cited by the Examiner
and agree with Appellant they do not teach or suggest the means for
receiving data are adapted to receive real time data.
5
Thus, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Issue 3
Appellant contends the three limitations of the “wherein” clause of
claim 5 are not taught or suggested by Kiernan and Cohen. See Appeal Br.
13–14. These limitations are the same as those in claim 1, except they recite
“hierarchical data,” rather than a “heterogeneous data source.” The
Examiner finds Kiernan teaches “hierarchial data” and that the limitations of
the “whereas” clause of claim 5 are taught by Kiernan. See Ans. 13–14,
Keirnan ¶¶ 9, 50. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Kiernan teaches
that an alternative data format to the tables found in a relational database

5
We not, however, that real time data bases have been known in the
art for a long time, including prior to Appellant’s priority date of June
29, 2007.
Appeal 2012-006914
Application 12/154,018

8
management system is XML and that “XML documents are made up of
storage units called elements, which can be nested to form a hierarchical
structure.” See Kiernan ¶¶ 7 and 9. Kiernan further teaches the preferred
embodiment of the invention “maps each table in RDBMS 102 (describing
contents of a database 100) to a virtual XML document.” See Kiernan ¶ 50.
Thus, Kiernan teaches that an alternative format to the tables in Figure 3 is
XML, the elements of which can be nested to form hierarchial data. And,
for the same reasons stated supra regarding issue 1 and the “wherein”
limitations of claim1, we agree with the Examiner that the “wherein”
limitations of claim 5 are taught in regard to “hierarchial data.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.
Issue 4
Appellant contends Kiernan and Cohen do not teach or suggest a
material manager data base for a production order manager or performance
analyzer as required by claim 7. See Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner finds
Cohen teaches the data source comprises a data base for a material manager
data base for a production order manager. See Ans. 14, Cohen 1:27–32,
1:59–64, and 2:44–48. We agree with the Examiner’s finding. Specifically,
we agree Cohen teaches or suggests a data source comprises a data base for
a material manager because Cohen states that manufacturers using
manufacturing execution systems maintain a data base of information, which
controls and supports the production process and which can include
materials and equipment needed for the manufacturing process. See Cohen,
1:9–18, 2:44–48. We also agree Cohen teaches or suggests a material
manager data base “for a production order manager” because Cohen
discloses the administrator of the manufacturing execution system would
Appeal 2012-006914
Application 12/154,018

9
give selected customers remote access to the manufacturing execution
system to view “their batches and/or orders including inventory information
being tracked by the manufacturing execution system.” Id. at 1:27–32,
1:59–64, and 2:44–48. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Cohen
teaches or suggests a data base for a material manager data base for a
production order manager, as recited in claim 7.
6
Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5, 7, and 9, is
affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 4 is reversed.
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-IN-PART

JRG

6
Furthermore, we note that the content of the data base constitutes non-
functional descriptive material because it does not alter how the claimed
system functions. Thus, no patentable weight is given to the content of the
database of the claimed system. See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883,
1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (“[T]he nature of the information being
manipulated does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable
computer-implemented product or process.”)