Ex Parte Foebel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2019

14318853 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/318,853 06/30/2014 Florian Foebel
52025 7590 03/04/2019
SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST A VENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
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.
140414US01 6421
EXAMINER
MOBIN, HASANUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 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):
martin@BMTPATENT.COM
szpara@bmtpatent.com
colabella@bmtpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FLORIAN FOEBEL, BJOERN FRIEDMANN,
BORIS GRUSCHKO, CHRISTIAN MOHR,
MARTIN STRENGE, and SASCHA ZORN
Appeal2018-005271
Application 14/318,853 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-17, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed October 2, 2017
("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed April 23, 2018 ("Reply Br.");
Examiner's Answer mailed February 28, 2018 ("Ans."); and Final Office
Action mailed May 16, 2017 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2018-005271
Application 14/318,853
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 7, and 12 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A system comprising:
a database storing data; and
a processor to execute processor-executable process steps
to cause the system to:
receive a request to modify the data, the request including
first data;
execute processing to fulfill the request;
determine, during execution of the processing to fulfill the
request to modify the data, that a validation exit including
executable code to validate the data to be modified is associated
with a current state of the processing to fulfill the request to
modify the data;
store the first data in a local temporary table in response to
the determination that the validation exit is associated with the
current state of the processing to fulfill the request to modify the
data;
pass the local temporary table to the validation exit; and
execute the validation exit to validate the first data based
on the local temporary table and on the data of the database.
Khosravy
Duff
Ahmed
References
US 2011/0225107 Al
US 2012/0191735 Al
US 2013/0198238 Al
2
Sept. 15, 2011
July 26, 2012
Aug. 1, 2013
Appeal2018-005271
Application 14/318,853
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 6-8.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Duff and Ahmed. Id. at 9-14.
Claims 4, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Duff, Ahmed, and Khosravy. Id. at 14--15.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See
MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l).
ANALYSIS
35 us.c. § 101
The Examiner concludes claims 1-17 are directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter. Final Act. 6-8. We agree with Appellants that the claims are
directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
the following implicit exceptions: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014).
In Alice, the Supreme Court set forth an analytical "framework for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts." Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). The first step in the analysis is to
3
Appeal2018-005271
Application 14/318,853
"determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-
ineligible concepts." Id. at 217. If the claim is "directed to" an abstract
idea, we tum to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where
"we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it
contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract
idea into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Following the recent United States Patent and Trademark Office 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 Guidance"), 84
Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), we initially observe that independent claims 1,
7, and 12 recite, respectively, a system, a method, and a non-transitory
computer-readable medium. As such, the claims are directed to statutory
classes of invention within 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Next, we tum to the first step of the Alice analysis, discussed in
"Revised Step 2A" of the 2019 Guidance. Id. at 54. The Examiner
determines the claims "describe the abstract idea of collecting and
comparing known information ... and data recognition and storage." Final
Act. 3, 7 ( citations omitted); Ans. 3. Appellants argue that, rather than being
directed to an abstract idea, the claims are "directed to validating changes in
a database at specific times in the request processing by executing a
registered exit to perform the validation" and further "provide[] benefits
over conventional databases." App. Br. 9.
We agree with Appellants that the claims are not directed to an
abstract idea and are instead directed to a manner of validating changes in a
database. In determining that claims are directed to an abstract idea, the
2019 Guidance requires an identification that the claims recite limitations
falling within at least one of three enumerated abstract idea groupings: (a)
4
Appeal2018-005271
Application 14/318,853
mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity,
and ( c) mental processes. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 54. The claims here recite
steps to "validate ... first data" for modifying database data "based on [a]
local temporary table and on the data of the database." Claim 1.
Specifically, those steps "store the first data to a local temporary table" and
"pass the local temporary table to [a] validation exit" for validation. Id. We
determine that those claimed steps, reciting a particular manner of validating
data to be input in a database, do not fall within one of the three enumerated
abstract idea groupings. We determine, therefore, that the claims are not
directed to an abstract idea in accordance with the 2019 Guidance. See 84
Fed. Reg. at 52, 54; see Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d
1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting that claims directed to "non-abstract
improvements to computer technology" "pass muster under Alice step one
when sufficiently focused on such improvements") ( quotations and citations
omitted).
Therefore, because the claims do not recite "subject matter within the
enumerated groupings of abstract ideas," and so are not directed to a judicial
exception, the claims are eligible under the first step of the Alice analysis,
and we do not reach the second step of the Alice analysis. See 2019
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 54. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter.
35 us.c. § 103
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Duff teaches
"determin[ing], during execution of the processing to fulfill the request to
5
Appeal2018-005271
Application 14/318,853
modify the data, that a validation exit including executable code to validate
the data to be modified is associated with a current state of the processing to
fulfill the request to modify the data," as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claims 7 and 12. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically,
Appellants argue that, in Duff, "updated data is stored, and then a second
request (block 445), separate from the first request for the data (block 405),
is made for validation of the updated data after the updated data is received
(e.g., after the request for data has been fulfilled)." App. Br. 13; see Reply
Br. 2-3. That is, Appellants argue Duff's "validati[ on] [ ofJ the updated data
of the first request" does not teach the disputed limitations. Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner relies on the data table update
procedure of Duff (see Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 9), which includes "subsequent
requests (e.g., second request 215 from FIG. 2E)" including data table
"changes reflected" that are "validated against permissibly modifiable
fields" (Duff,I 71; see Duff,r,r 101, 109, Fig. 4). The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Duff's data table update procedure, which validates the update
data of Duffs second request, teaches "determin[ing], during execution of
the processing to fulfill the request to modify the data, that a validation exit
including executable code to validate the data to be modified is associated
with a current state of the processing to fulfill the request to modify the
data." Ans. 9; Final Act. 9-10 (citing Duff,I 101, Fig. 4).
Appellants' argument directed to Duffs "validati[ on] [ of] the updated
data of the first request" after the first request has been fulfilled (Reply
Br. 3; App. Br. 13) does not address the validation of update data in Duff's
second request. Duff explains that "one or more cells in the user session
data table are updated responsive to update data received within a second
6
Appeal2018-005271
Application 14/318,853
request received." Duff,I 100. That second request update data is validated
so that the second request to update data can then be fulfilled. Duff ,r,r 71
("changes reflected in the second request 215 may be appropriately
validated), 109 ("processing logic receives a second request ... processing
logic validates the update data," Fig. 4). Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in finding Duff teaches "determin[ing], during execution
of the processing to fulfill the request to modify the data, that a validation
exit including executable code to validate the data to be modified is
associated with a current state of the processing to fulfill the request to
modify the data."
Appellants further contend Ahmed does not teach "stor[ing] the first
data in a local temporary table in response to the determination that the
validation exit is associated with the current state of the processing to fulfill
the request to modify the data [and] pass[ing] the local temporary table to
the validation exit," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7
and 12. App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellants argue "simply providing a
data update and verification module to store, compare and verify data, as in
Ahmed cannot be seen to disclose or to suggest" the claimed limitations. Id.
Appellants' argument (id.) is not persuasive because that argument
merely describes Ahmed and summarily concludes Ahmed does not teach
certain recited and underlined claim language. Appellants do not explain
why the relied-upon portions of Ahmed, or Appellants' description of
Ahmed, fail to teach the disputed limitations. Moreover, Appellants do not
present persuasive argument or evidence that the Examiner erred in finding
( Ans. 8-9; Final Act. 10-11) the combination of Ahmed, describing "data
update and verification module 116 [which] may store expected data in file
7
Appeal2018-005271
Application 14/318,853
170, in source database 160, or in target database 150" for "later verification
and comparison of updated data" (Ahmed ,r 36), and Duff, describing user
session data tables and update data validation (Duff ,r,r 69, 71, 109), teaches
"stor[ing] the first data in a local temporary table in response to the
determination that the validation exit is associated with the current state of
the processing to fulfill the request to modify the data [and] pass[ing] the
local temporary table to the validation exit," as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 7 and 12.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the
combination of Duff and Ahmed teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in claims 1, 7, and 12. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims
1, 7, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Duff and Ahmed. Appellants do not argue separate
patentability for dependent claims 2---6, 8-11, and 13-17, which depend
directly or indirectly from claims 1, 7, and 12. See App. Br. 15.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 2-6, 8-11, and 13-17.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14,
16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Duff and
Ahmed.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4, 9, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Duff, Ahmed, and Khosravy.
8
Appeal2018-005271
Application 14/318,853
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9