Ex Parte Heusermann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2014

10929832 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KNUT HEUSERMANN, JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ,
INGO BRUSS, and CHRISTIANE KUNTZ-MAYR
___________

Appeal 2011-003871
Application 10/929,832
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003871
Application 10/929,832

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non-final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-21, 23, and 24. Claims 4, 9, and 22 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “categorizing an object upon
distribution of the object from a sender system to a recipient system.”
(Spec. 1:3-4). The object is assigned a recipient category in a recipient
category hierarchy “according to a first predefined mapping from a sender
category hierarchy to the recipient category hierarchy.” (Abstract). A
second predefined mapping is applied to the object from the recipient
category hierarchy to the sender category hierarchy. (Id.). If the first and
second predefined mappings do not converge, a rule based reassignment
algorithm is executed to make the first and second predefined mappings
converge. (Id.).
Independent claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method of categorizing an object upon distribution of
the object from a sender system to a recipient system, the method
comprising:
using an object management application stored in memory,
assigning an object to at least one recipient category in a
recipient category hierarchy according to a first predefined mapping
from a sender category hierarchy to the recipient category hierarchy,
the object having been assigned to a sender category in the sender
category hierarchy;
applying to the object a second predefined mapping from the
recipient category hierarchy back to the sender category hierarchy;
Appeal 2011-003871
Application 10/929,832

3
determining whether the first and second predefined mappings
converge by determining that the second predefined mapping maps
the object back to the sender category; and
when the first and second predefined mappings do not
converge, executing a rule-based reassignment algorithm to reassign
the object to at least one other recipient category, repeatedly, until the
first and second predefined mappings converge.

Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Suchter (US 6,675,161 B1; issued Jan. 6, 2004
(filed May 4, 1999)), Andrei (US 6,859,810 B2; issued Feb. 22, 2005 (filed
May 17, 2002)), and Yorke (US 7,020,659 B2; issued Mar. 28, 2006 (filed
Aug. 15, 2001)).

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 14) that the
combination of Suchter, Andrei, and Yorke would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “to reassign the
object to at least one other recipient category, repeatedly, until the first and
second predefined mappings converge.”
The Examiner found that the bi-directional relationship manager of
Yorke corresponds to the limitation “to reassign the object to at least one
other recipient category, repeatedly, until the first and second predefined
mappings converge.” (Ans. 6, 14). We do not agree.
Appellants’ Specification discloses that:
The difference in categories can present challenges when
distributing an object between the systems. For example, all
cars are vehicles but not every vehicle is a car. This means that
every object assigned to a vehicles category cannot be
automatically assigned to a cars category because some of the
Appeal 2011-003871
Application 10/929,832

4
vehicle category objects may not be cars. Accordingly, it may
not generally be possible to perform a one-to-one (or 1x1)
mapping between categorizations in these systems . . . .
(Spec. 2:6-12 (emphasis added)). Appellants’ Specification further discloses
that:
Particularly, there may be a lack of convergence in the
mapping. That is, if a category in the sender system is mapped
to a category in the recipient system and, upon inverting the
mapping back to the sender system again, the inverse mapping
does not target the specific sender category but rather another
category, the mapping may lack convergence.
(Spec. 2:15-19 (emphasis added)). Thus, the Specification describes a “lack
of convergence” as any mapping that does not perform a one-to-one
mapping between categories of different systems. Accordingly, in light of
the Specification, we interpret the claim language “convergence” as a one-
to-one mapping between categories of different systems (e.g., sender and
recipient systems).
Yorke relates to “a system and method for managing bi-directional
relationships between objects.” (Col. 1, ll. 7-8). Yorke explains that
“[w]hen an object referenced by an other [sic] object has a reference back to
the first object, these objects are related through a bi-directional
relationship” and “[w]hen a user changes a reference in one object to another
object, the relationship needs to be modified.” (Col. 1, ll. 30-36). Figure 13
of Yorke illustrates an example of maintaining bi-directional relationships
(col. 4, ll. 21-22) in particular, removing a reference value from a many-to-
many bi-directional relationship (col. 12, ll. 9-11). In an original state,
“objects d0 and d1 are related with objects e0, e1 and e2 through a many-to-
many bi-directional relationship.” (Col. 12, ll. 11-13). Yorke explains that a
“user attempts to remove a reference value e1 for object d1” (col. 12, ll. 18-
Appeal 2011-003871
Application 10/929,832

5
19) and as a result, “the one-to-many bi-directional relationship is updated”
(col. 12, ll. 39-40). However, because Yorke explains that the “one-to-many
bi-directional relationship is updated,” rather than a one-to-one relationship,
Yorke does not teach the limitation “to reassign the object to at least one
other recipient category, repeatedly, until the first and second predefined
mappings converge,” as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, Yorke does not
provide an express teaching of repeatedly updating such bi-directional
relationships. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that
“Yorke merely discusses that, when a user changes a reference in one object
to another object, the user may need to maintain the bidirectional
relationships among related objects” and that Yorke “merely describes, with
reference to FIG. 13, updating ‘a one-to-many bi-directional relationship . . .
through the removal of [a] pair of uni-directional peer relationships.’”
(Br. 14 (citations omitted)).
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the combination of
combination of Suchter, Andrei, and Yorke would have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “to reassign the object to
at least one other recipient category, repeatedly, until the first and second
predefined mappings converge.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 3, 5-8, and 10-20 depend from
independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-8, and
10-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect
to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 21 and 23 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
Appeal 2011-003871
Application 10/929,832

6
rejection of claims 21 and 23, as well as dependent claim 24, for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’ decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-21, 23 and 24 is
reversed.

REVERSED
llw