Ex Parte Maria Meijer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 23, 2010

10809171 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 23, 2010)

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.
10/809,171 03/25/2004 Henricus Johannes Maria Meijer 13768.1425 7763
47973 7590 11/23/2010
WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT
1000 EAGLE GATE TOWER
60 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
EXAMINER
LOVEL, KIMBERLY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte HENRICUS JOHANNES MARIA MEIJER,
WOLFRAM SCHULTE, and OLUDARE V. OBASANJO
________________

Appeal 2009-002736
Application 10/809,171
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAY P. LUCAS, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-002736
Application 10/809,171

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-28, 30, and 31. Claim 29 is canceled.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to systems and methods that map constructs
from one domain to another domain (Spec. 1, ll. 6-7).
Claim 13 is illustrative:
13. A method that transforms constructs between
domains, comprising:
receiving a construct;
obtaining a mapping associated with the construct; and
employing the mapping to transform the construct of a
first domain to a second construct of another domain.
(App. Br. 12, Claims Appendix).
References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence in
support of the rejection:
Meltzer US 6,125,391 Sep. 26, 2000
Dorsett US 6,658,429 B2 Dec. 2, 2003
Russell US 2004/0039964 A1 Feb. 26, 2004
Charlet US 2005/0160108 A1 Jul. 21, 2005
(filed Jan. 16, 2004)

2 Claim 29 canceled in After Final Amendment filed April 20, 2007. After
Final Amendment entered by Examiner in Advisory Action dated May 3,
2007.
Appeal 2009-002736
Application 10/809,171

3
Rejections
Claims 1-6, 12-16, 18, 19, 26, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(e) as being anticipated by Charlet.
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Charlet and Dorsett.
Claims 9, 17, 24, 25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Charlet and Meltzer.
Claims 11 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Charlet and Russell.
ISSUE
Appellants argue that “Charlet et al. does not disclose a system of
transforming a construct from one domain or space to a construct in another
domain or space . . . .” (App. Br. 7).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Charlet teaches mapping a
first construct of a domain to a second construct of another domain?
FINDING OF FACT
The following Finding of Fact (FF) is shown by a preponderance of
the evidence:
Charlet discloses a “system 400 for passing data between a valid
XML document 202 and a hierarchical database 204” (¶ [0061])
including a “mapping module 206 [that] uses an XML schema 302
and database schema 304” (¶ [0062]) where the mapping module
“maps data between the XML document 202 and the hierarchical
database 204” (¶ [0052]).

Appeal 2009-002736
Application 10/809,171

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
ANALYSIS
As set forth above, Charlet discloses a mapping module or component
that “maps data between” (¶ [0052]) an XML document into a hierarchical
database 204 (Charlet, Figs. 2 and 3; FF). The Specification does not
provide an explicit definition of the term “construct” but provides one
example of a “construct” as being “structured data” (Spec. 8). Appellants
also fail to indicate an explicit definition of the term “domain” in the
Specification. Using a plain and customary definition of the term “domain”
to include any location, area, or space, we agree with the Examiner that
Charlet discloses mapping one “structured data” (i.e., an XML document) in
one area or location (i.e., “domain”) to a second structured data (i.e., a
hierarchical database) in another area or location (i.e., another domain).
Appeal 2009-002736
Application 10/809,171

5
Appellants argue that “Charlet . . . merely discloses the transfer of
raw data from an XML document . . . to a hierarchical database” (App. Br.
7) but fails to indicate how Charlet’s disclosure of mapping (via a mapping
module) data in the XML document (which constitutes “structured data”)
into the hierarchical database (a second “structured data” or “construct”)
differs from the claimed feature (as recited in claim 1) of mapping
“structured data” from one domain to a structured data of another domain.
Nor do we independently identify any differences. Therefore, we disagree
with Appellants’ contention that “Charlet . . . does not disclose a system of
transforming a construct from one domain or space to a construct in another
domain or space” (App. Br. 7).
Claims 13, 18, 30, and 31 recite similar features as claim 1.
Appellants also do not provide additional arguments with regard to the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-11, 17, 20-25, 27, or 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Charlet and one of Dorsett, Russell, or
Meltzer.
For at least the above mentioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-28, 30, and 31,

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in finding that Charlet discloses mapping a first
construct of a domain to a second construct of another domain.

Appeal 2009-002736
Application 10/809,171

6
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting 1-6, 12-16, 18, 19, 26,
30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 7-11, 17, 20-25, 27, and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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

rvb

WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT
1000 EAGLE GATE TOWER
60 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111