Ex Parte Janssen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2013

10912118 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/912,118 08/06/2004 Tatjana Janssen 07781.0188-00 2294
60668 7590 12/13/2013
SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
SYED, FARHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TATJANA JANSSEN, UWE KINDSVOGEL,
and KLAUS IRLE
____________

Appeal 2011-005747
Application 10/912,118
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEYER, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-57 (App. Br. 5). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is SAP AG (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-005747
Application 10/912,118

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Illustrative Claim
Appellants’ disclosure relates to creating a ranking value of a business
object according to its relevance for a search query. Spec. ¶ [002]. Claim 1
is illustrative and is reproduced below with the disputed features
emphasized:
1. A computer-implemented method for creating a
ranking value of a first business object according to its
relevance for a search query, said method comprising:
determining a reference value according to a number of
references to said first business object within other business
objects, the first business object including the reference value
indicating a number of times the first business object is
referenced within at least one of the other business objects and
at least one attribute value, wherein at least one of the other
business objects includes a data set that remains constant as an
update becomes available, and a data set that changes as the
update becomes available;
mapping the first business object into a document
structure;
mapping said reference value into said document
structure;
indexing said document structure for use in a search
engine;
calculating said ranking value based on the reference
value; and
adjusting the ranking value based on the at least one
attribute value when the reference value indicates that the
number of references to said first business object is equal to a
number of references to a second business object within the
other business objects.

Appeal 2011-005747
Application 10/912,118

3
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Brown US 5,875,446 Feb. 23, 1999
Kim US 2003/0046098 A1 Mar. 6, 2003
Gerasoulis US 7,024,404 B1 Apr. 4, 2006

Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 12-14, 16-28, 33-35, 37-46, 50-52,
and 54-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and
Brown. Ans. 4-19.2
The Examiner rejected claims 8-11, 15, 29-32, 36, 47-49, and 53
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Brown, and
Gerasoulis. Ans. 19-22.

ISSUE
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following dispositive
issue:3
Did the Examiner err by finding that the combination of Kim and
Brown teaches “determining a reference value according to a number of
references to said first business object within other business objects . . .
[and] calculating said ranking value based on the reference value,” as recited

2 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed
October 5, 2010 and Reply Brief filed February 2, 2011, and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed December 20, 2010.
3 Appellants’ contentions raise additional issues. As the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
Appeal 2011-005747
Application 10/912,118

4
in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims
22 and 41?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the combination of
Kim and Brown does not disclose “determining a reference value according
to a number of references to said first business object within other business
objects . . . [and] calculating said ranking value based on the reference
value,” as recited in claim 1 (See App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 2-4).
As claimed, the ranking value of a first business object is calculated
“based on the reference value,” the claimed reference value being
determined “according to a number of references to said first business object
within other business objects” (See App. Br. 25 (emphasis added)). The
Examiner relies on the hierarchical view generator of Brown as disclosing
the claimed calculating a ranking value step (Ans. 6, 23 (citing Brown, col.
6, ll. 55-59)). The Examiner attempts to equate the “rank of topically
relevant objects” to which a parent website points to the claimed reference
value (Ans. 6, 23). However, the claim language explicitly defines reference
value as being determined “according to a number of references to said first
business object within other business objects” (See App. Br. 25).
We agree with Appellants’ contention that the cited portion of Brown
does not disclose calculating the ranking value of the websites in the search
results based on a reference value defined in this way (See App. Br. 15). As
noted by Appellants, “Brown discloses ranking documents based on number
of hyperlink paths from the parent to structurally relevant objects” (Id.
(emphasis added) (citing Brown, col. 9, ll. 18-21); Reply Br. 3). Kim also
Appeal 2011-005747
Application 10/912,118

5
does not disclose this claim feature. As noted by Appellants, Kim instead
teaches the ranking is calculated based on an objective relevancy analysis
and free and/or paid votes submitted by users (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2-3
(citing Kim ¶¶ [0031], [0075])). Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that
the Examiner has not made a prima facie showing that the cited combination
teaches or suggests “determining a reference value according to a number of
references to said first business object within other business objects . . .
[and] calculating said ranking value based on the reference value.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of claim 1; independent claims 22 and 41, which recite similar limitations to
those which we find not disclosed by the cited art; and claims 2-7, 12-14,
16-21, 23-28, 33-35, 37-40, 42-46, 50-52, and 54-57, which depend from
claims 1, 22, or 41. Claims 8-11, 15, 29-32, 36, 47-49, and 53 depend from
claims 1, 22, or 41. As applied by the Examiner (See Ans. 6), Gerasoulis
does not remedy the deficiencies of the combination of Kim and Brown as
identified by Appellants. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 8-11, 15, 29-32, 36, 47-49, and 53.
In the Event of Further Prosecution
We have decided the Appeal before us. In the event of further
prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether it would have
been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Kim and Brown
with Gerasoulis’ teaching that a rank value may be assigned to a webpage
based on the number of in-bound links to the page (See Gerasoulis, col. 1, ll.
40-50).

Appeal 2011-005747
Application 10/912,118

6
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-57 is reversed.

REVERSED

gvw