Ex Parte Gruenheid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2017

13169211 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2017)

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.
13/169,211 06/27/2011 Anja Gruenheid DE920110031US1/0920.0155C 1561
46157 7590 09/21/2017
EDELL, SHAPIRO, & FINNAN, LLC
9801 Washingtonian Blvd.
Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, PHONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2017 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):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANJA GRUENHEID, ALBERT MAIER,
MARTIN OBERHOFER, THOMAS SCHWARZ,
and MANFRED VODEGEL
Appeal 2015-004804
Application 13/169,211
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1—17, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-004804
Application 13/169,211
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates to “enterprise
data integration, and in particular to providing data quality in data migration
(e.g., [extract, transform and load] ETL) processes.” Spec. 11.2 The
Specification explains that during data migration “from at least one data
source to a target system, data quality is determined by obtaining metadata
associated with the target system, automatically generating instantiated rules
for assessing a quality of data to be loaded from the at least one data source
into the target system,” and “applying a quality analysis based upon the
instantiated rules to the data to be loaded into the target system.” Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6 exemplify the claims at
issue and read as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method of determining data
quality during migration of data from at least one data source to
a target system, the method comprising:
obtaining metadata associated with the target system;
automatically generating instantiated rules specific to the
target system for assessing a quality of data to be loaded from
the at least one data source into the target system by applying
the obtained metadata to one or more rule templates, wherein
the instantiated rules are dependent upon the obtained metadata
and vary between different target systems;
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed June 27, 2011; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed January 2, 2014; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed August 6,
2014; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 26, 2015; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed March 26, 2015.
2
Appeal 2015-004804
Application 13/169,211
performing a quality analysis by applying the instantiated
rules to the data to be loaded into the target system and
providing an indication of a level of compliance of the data
with requirements of the target system; and
providing a visualization of a level of compliance of the
data in relation to requirements of the target system resulting
from the performance of the quality analysis on the data
utilizing the instantiated rules, wherein the visualization
comprises a plurality of gap reports, each gap report providing
an indication of a specific gap type of the data in relation to the
requirements of the target system, and the plurality of gap
reports are configured for presentation in a single display to
provide an indication of amount of gaps for each gap type in
relation to other gap types.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the specific gap types
comprise at least two of a Data Completeness Gap Report
(DCGR), a Data Validity Gap Report (DVGR), a Field Length
Gap Report (FLGR), a Category Completeness Gap Report
(CCGR), a Relationship Orphan Gap Report (ROGR), a Record
Relationship Gap Report (RRGR) and a Data Type Gap Report
(DTGR).
App. Br. 19-20 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejection on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Kemp et al. (“Kemp”) US 2009/0222470 A1 Sept. 3, 2009
Rand et al. (“Rand”) US 2009/0327452 Al Dec. 31, 2009
Gentile et al. (“Gentile”) US 7,711,660 B1 May 4, 2010
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gentile, Rand, and Kemp. Final Act. 2—7.
3
Appeal 2015-004804
Application 13/169,211
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claims 1—17 in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we
disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding Examiner error. We adopt
the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action (Final
Act. 2—7) and Answer (Ans. 2-4). We add the following to address and
emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1—17
A “Plurality of Gap Reports” Where Each
Gap Report Indicates a “Specific Gap Type”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 7, and 12 because the references do not teach or suggest claim 1 ’s
“providing a visualization” limitation and similar limitations in claims 7
and 12. See App. Br. 14—17; Reply Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellants
contend that the references do not teach or suggest a “plurality of gap
reports” where each gap report indicates a “specific gap type.” App. Br. 16—
17; Reply Br. 2. Appellants assert that Kemp’s “combination reports,
hierarchy reports, and mapping reports” do not “provide[] an indication of a
specific gap type of the data in relation to the requirements of the target
system” and, therefore, do not correspond to the claimed “plurality of gap
reports.” App. Br. 16—17; see Reply Br. 3. Appellants further assert that
“the gaps described by Kemp” concern “gaps in mapping of a target data
model to source data models” rather than gaps in the actual data loaded into
a target system. App. Br. 16—17; see Reply Br. 3^4.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
Kemp teaches or suggests a “plurality of gap reports” where each gap report
4
Appeal 2015-004804
Application 13/169,211
indicates a “specific gap type.” See Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 2—3; Kemp H 10,
34, 36, 63. “[DJuring examination proceedings, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, the Specification
indicates that the term “specific gap type” refers to a particular type of data
error or rule violation. See Spec. H 18—25, 28, 40. As an example, if a field
must contain a value other than the null value, violations of that rule appear
in a Data Completeness Gap Report. Id. 119. As another example, if a field
must contain a value shorter than a maximum length, violations of that rule
appear in a Field Length Gap Report. Id. 121. Asa further example, if a
field must contain a particular data type, e.g., character, integer, or decimal
data, violations of that rule appear in a Data Type Gap Report. Id. 125.
Thus, the Specification indicates that a “gap report” provides information
about a particular type of data error or rule violation, and a “plurality of gap
reports” provides information about different types of data errors or rule
violations. Id. H 10, 18—25, 28, 40, 47, Fig. 3.
Kemp discloses a development tool including a “gap detector/resolver
module” that “detect[s] data gaps” and facilitates documenting, monitoring,
and tracking data gaps. Kemp H 34, 36; see Ans. 2—3. Kemp explains that
a “target data model may be mapped to existing consolidation systems,
general ledgers, data marts, source systems, and the like.” Kemp 136; see
id. 4—6, 55. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
different types of data errors may occur during that kind of “complex
endeavor.” See id. 1 6. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Further, Gentile instructs that different types of
5
Appeal 2015-004804
Application 13/169,211
data errors may occur during a data quality check, including invalid dates,
incomplete fields, and failure to satisfy defined standards, e.g., an actual
value not matching a permissible value. Gentile 3:18—30, 4:59-61, 6:25—27.
In addition, Kemp’s development tool includes “a report generator
module” that “facilitates the generation of various reports in order to monitor
various aspects” of target data models. Kemp H 10, 34; see Ans. 2—3.
Those various reports permit “monitoring and managing stored data relating
to target data models.” Kemp H 33—34, 63.
A person of ordinary skill would have fit together Kemp’s disclosures
regarding the gap detector/resolver module and the report generator module
and understood that Kemp teaches or suggests different reports for different
types of data errors, i.e., a “plurality of gap reports” where each gap report
indicates a “specific gap type.” See Ans. 2—3; see also KSR, 550 U.S.
at 420. Further, the Examiner finds that Kemp’s development tool “provides
multiple output reports in the display” similar to a “plurality of gap reports
. . . configured for presentation in a single display.” Ans. 3.
Appellants’ assertion that “the gaps described by Kemp” concern
“gaps in mapping of a target data model to source data models” rather than
gaps in the actual data loaded into a target system overlooks Kemp’s
disclosure regarding the development tool’s use for populating a target data
structure with actual data and documenting data gaps. Kemp 136; see id.
11 1, 9, 20, 33—34, Fig. 3. Consequently, Kemp teaches or suggests
documenting gaps in the actual data loaded into a target system as well as
gaps in mapping. As the Examiner properly finds, “Kemp teaches analysis
of data from disparate data sources during loading as well as analysis and
reporting of data gaps.” Final Act. 5.
6
Appeal 2015-004804
Application 13/169,211
We note that Gentile also teaches or suggests a “plurality of gap
reports” where each gap report indicates a “specific gap type.” More
specifically, Gentile discloses performing a data quality check during data
migration to monitor whether the values in various fields conform with
predefined rules called rule types. Gentile 4:59-61, 6:25—27, 10:19-56.
A field violating a particular rule type corresponds to a “specific gap type.”
Gentile explains that during the data quality check, “various attributes of the
data are verified,” such as, “whether all data fields . . . have been completed,
whether the data includes invalid dates,. . . and/or whether the data . . .
meets defined standards.” Id. at 3:18—25. After the data quality check, a
user interface may show violations of different rule types, i.e., a “plurality of
gap reports,” in a single display. Id. at 2:63—67, 3:31—34, 4:65—67, 5:52—59,
6:51—55, 10:11—11:20, Fig. 13 (display with third column from the left for
“Rule Type”); see Final Act. 7.
Summary for Independent Claims 1,7, and 12
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 7, and 12 for
obviousness based on Gentile, Rand, and Kemp. Hence, we sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 7, and 12.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 8-10, and 13-16
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for dependent
claims 2—5, 8—10, and 13—16. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 3^4. Because
Appellants do not argue the claims separately, we sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons as the related
independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
7
Appeal 2015-004804
Application 13/169,211
Dependent Claims 6,11, and 17
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent
claims 6, 11, and 17 because “[n]one of the Gentile, Rand or Kemp
references teaches [the] specific gap type reports” recited in the claims.
App. Br. 17; see Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants also argue that Kemp’s
“combination reports, hierarchy reports, and mapping reports” appear related
to “how a target data model maps to source data models, and not to how well
actual data from a source is loaded into a target system.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the references teach or suggest “at least two of’ the specific reports recited
in claims 6, 11, and 17. Kemp’s account hierarchy reports relate to parent-
child relationships among data and teach or suggest a Relationship Orphan
Gap Report and a Record Relationship Gap Report. See Kemp 1 63; Spec.
1123-24; see also Ans. 3^4. Also, as discussed above, Gentile discloses
performing a data quality check during data migration and showing different
data errors, i.e., a “plurality of gap reports,” in a single display. Gentile
2:63-67, 3:31-34, 4:59-61, 4:65-67, 5:52-59, 6:25-27, 6:51-55, 10:11—
11:20, Fig. 13 ; see Final Act. 6—7. Gentile discusses checking for, among
other things, the “presence of data in defined fields” and the “length of
records.” Gentile 1:51—55. A report regarding errors in the “presence of
data in defined fields” teaches or suggests a Data Completeness Gap Report.
See Spec. 119. A report regarding errors in the “length of records” teaches
or suggests a Field Fength Gap Report. See id. 121.
In addition, the Examiner determines that the specific reports recited
in claims 6, 11, and 17 amount to “mere labels” that impart little or no
patentable weight because the different report types act as nonfunctional
8
Appeal 2015-004804
Application 13/169,211
descriptive material. Final Act. 6—7. We agree that those specific reports
constitute nonfunctional descriptive material, i.e., printed matter.
“[A] limitation is printed matter only if it claims the content of
information.” In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here,
the specific reports recited in claims 6, 11, and 17 are claimed for their
communicative content. See Spec. ]Hf 19—25. The reports differ from one
another due to the information they communicate. Id. For instance, a Field
Length Gap Report “measures for each field in each table for each source
record whether or not the value in the field measured is longer then [sic] the
maximum length of the field in the target,” whereas a Data Type Gap Report
“measures how many of the functional correlations between source and
target fields are compatible from a data type perspective.” Id. H 21, 25.
Where the printed matter has no functional or structural relation to its
substrate, “the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the
prior art in terms of patentability.” Distefano, 808 F.3d at 848, 850-51
(quoting In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, the
specific reports recited in claims 6, 11, and 17 have little or no functional or
structural relation to an implicitly required display. The specific reports
simply provide different “visualizations” and do not affect how the
limitations in the base claims cooperate with one another. Also, the claims
include no language linking the specific reports to any structure. Therefore,
the recitations of specific reports in claims 6, 11, and 17 do little to
distinguish the claims from the references. See, e.g., AstraZeneca LP v.
Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d 1042, 1064—65 (Fed. Cir. 2010); KingPharm., Inc. v.
Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1278—79 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In reNgai,
367 F.3d 1336, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883,
9
Appeal 2015-004804
Application 13/169,211
1888—90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276,
1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 F. App’x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The specific reports recited in claims 6, 11, and 17 parallel the “set of
instructions” added to a known kit and not accorded patentable weight in
Ngai. See 367 F.3d at 1338—39. As the Federal Circuit reasoned in Ngai,
permitting those reports to impart patentable weight would mean that
“anyone could continue patenting a product indefinitely provided that they”
produced a new report. See id. at 1339. This application of the printed-
matter doctrine “prevents] the indefinite patenting of known products by the
simple inclusion of novel, yet functionally unrelated limitations.” See King
Pharm., 616 F.3d at 1279.
Appellants dispute that the specific reports recited in claims 6, 11,
and 17 constitute nonfunctional descriptive material “that can be ignored in
relation to” the references. App. Br. 17. But Appellants do not explain the
basis for their position. Id. Hence, Appellants’ argument does not establish
Examiner error.
Because the references teach or suggest reports according to claims 6,
11, and 17, and because those reports do little to distinguish the claims from
the references, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims.
See, e.g., Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1338-39; Nehls, 88 USPQ2d at 1888-90;
Mathias, 84 USPQ2d at 1279.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—17.
10
Appeal 2015-004804
Application 13/169,211
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). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
11