Ex Parte Rangadass

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2013

10847422 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VASUDEV RANGADASS1
____________________

Appeal 2010-007077
Application 10/847,422
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
rejection of claims 1-34. Appellant has previously canceled claims 35-70.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Real Party in Interest is i2 Technologies US, Inc. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2010-007077
Application 10/847,422

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
The Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to a master data management system
for centrally managing core reference data associated with an enterprise.
Spec. p. 1, ll. 7-9 (“TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION”).
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention
which is reproduced below (emphasis added):
1. A computer-implemented system for centrally
managing core enterprise reference data associated with an
enterprise, comprising:
a storage medium stored therein a centralized master
repository comprising the core enterprise reference data,
wherein the core enterprise reference data describes the
enterprise;
a storage medium stored therein an internal services
framework coupled with the centralized master repository, the
internal services framework provides:
a business process toolkit for managing models
associated with the system, the business process toolkit
comprising:
a model library comprising reference data models; and

2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Nov. 9, 2009); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 22, 2010); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 22, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed
May 29, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed May 17, 2004).
Appeal 2010-007077
Application 10/847,422

3
one or more modeling services for modeling the system,
its structure, and its components; and
internal services for managing the core enterprise
reference data within the centralized master repository, one or
more of the internal services having direct access to the core
enterprise reference data stored in the centralized master
repository for management purposes; and
a storage medium stored therein an infrastructure services
layer coupled with the centralized master repository provides
bulk data transfers of core enterprise reference data between the
centralized master repository and one or more external
operational systems according to one or more enterprise-level
business workflows, the external operational systems permitted
indirect access to the core enterprise reference data stored in the
centralized master repository for operational purposes.

Claim 3 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention
which is reproduced below (emphasis added):
3. The system of Claim 1, wherein the models
comprise:
a document model providing metadata for documents
used in connection with the processes to be used for managing
the core enterprise reference data stored in the centralized
master repository, each document providing a representation
of metadata elements within an underlying core enterprise
reference data model;
a forms model providing metadata describing forms
associated with objects within the underlying core enterprise
reference data model; and
a core enterprise reference data model representing
metadata describing the core enterprise reference data stored in
the centralized master repository, changes to the core enterprise
Appeal 2010-007077
Application 10/847,422

4
reference data model reflected in the forms and document
models to synchronize these models with the core enterprise
reference data model.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Zargham US 2002/0107957 A1 Aug. 8, 2002
Robinson US 7,027,997 B1 Apr. 11, 2006
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 2, 5-13, 16-24, and 27-34 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Zargham. Ans. 3.
2. Claims 3-4, 14-15, and 25-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zargham and
Robinson. Ans. 10.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions with respect to claim 1, and we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Arguments. However,
we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1
for emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2010-007077
Application 10/847,422

5
1. Rejection of Claims 1-5, 8, 10, and 13-20
Issue 1
Appellant argues (App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 2-4) that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by
Zargham is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Zargham discloses
Appellant’s claimed computer-implemented system for
centrally managing core enterprise reference data associated
with an enterprise including, inter alia, “a centralized master
repository comprising the core enterprise reference data,
wherein the core enterprise reference data describes the
enterprise,” as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Appellant contends:
[T]he portion of Zargham, relied upon in the Final Office Action does
not disclose a “centralized master repository”, wherein the
“centralized master repository” comprises core enterprise reference
data that describes an enterprise, as recited in Claim 1. By contrast,
the cited portion of Zargham on which the Examiner relied fails to
disclose a “storage medium stored therein a centralized master
repository comprising the core enterprise reference data, wherein
the core enterprise reference data describes the enterprise,” as
required by Claim 1.
App. Br. 12-13 (emphases in original). Appellant further contends “[t]he
Examiner’s Answer [Ans. 13-14] thus alleges that transactional data in the
central repository meets the language of Claim 1[, h]owever, Zargham’s
central repository lacks core enterprise reference data needed to satisfy the
claim language of a centralized master repository comprising the core
Appeal 2010-007077
Application 10/847,422

6
enterprise reference data that describes the enterprise[, and w]ithout data that
describes the enterprise, Zargham’s central repository cannot anticipate
Claim 1.” Reply Br. 2-3 (emphasis omitted).
We further note that Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s
specific request “to further clarify in claim language core enterprise
reference data [because] Zargham teaches . . . inclusion of enterprise data
which includes products, tools, and services of a particular enterprise . . .
[and teaches] that services describe reference data of an enterprise,” which
discloses the claim limitation “wherein the core enterprise reference data
describes the enterprise”. Ans. 4 (citing Zargham ¶¶ [0059] and [0076]).
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions regarding “core enterprise
data,” and agree with the Examiner’s findings in this regard. Ans. 3-6 and
13-14. In addition, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that “[i]t
appears that the Examiner’s Answer may be contending that the above
quoted claim language is met with a possibility that the Zargham reference
may inherently disclose both core enterprise reference data as well as
transactional data.” Reply Br. 3. We find no such “inherency” argument in
the Examiner’s findings. Instead, we note that “core enterprise reference
data,” as recited in the claims on appeal, constitutes “non-functional
descriptive material.”
Where certain types of descriptive material, such as music, literature,
art, photographs and mere arrangements or compilations of facts or data, are
merely stored so as to be read or outputted by a computer without creating
any functional interrelationship, either as part of the stored data or as part of
the computing processes performed by the computer, then such descriptive
Appeal 2010-007077
Application 10/847,422

7
material alone does not impart functionality either to the data as so
structured, or to the computer. Such “descriptive material” is not a process,
machine, manufacture or composition of matter. (Data consists of facts,
which become information when they are seen in context and convey
meaning to people. Further, computers process data without any
understanding of what that data represents. Computer Dictionary 210
(Microsoft Press, 2d ed. 1994)).
The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material
absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive
material and an underlying structure or process. Nonfunctional descriptive
material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise
been obvious. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cf. In
re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[T]he critical question is
whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between
the printed matter and the substrate”; when descriptive material is not
functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not
distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability); and Cf.
In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See also Ex parte
Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative)
(“[N]onfunctional descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an
invention that would have otherwise been anticipated by the prior art.”),
aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Rule 36); Ex parte Curry, 84
USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (“Nonfunctional descriptive
material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise
been obvious.”), aff’d, No. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Rule 36).
Appeal 2010-007077
Application 10/847,422

8
Accordingly, Appellant has not convinced us of any error in the
Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent
claim 1. Appellant has not provided separate arguments with respect to
similarly rejected independent claims 12 and 23, and dependent claims 2, 5-
11, 13, 16-22, 24, and 27-34, except to state that “[c]laims 12, 23, and 34
include similar claim features missing from Zargham, and therefore, Claims
12, 23, and 34 are not anticipated.” App. Br. 14. We similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
2. Rejection of Claims 3-4, 14-15, and 25-26
Issue 2
Appellant argues (App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 4-6) that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Zargham and Robinson is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Zargham with Robinson teaches or suggests Appellant’s
claimed computer-implemented system for centrally managing
core enterprise reference data associated with an enterprise
including, inter alia, “a document model providing metadata for
documents . . . each document providing a representation of
metadata elements . . . [and] a forms model providing metadata
describing forms associated with objects,” as recited in claim 3?
Appeal 2010-007077
Application 10/847,422

9
Analysis
Appellant argues that:
Robinson fails to disclose a “document model providing metadata for
documents, each document providing a representation of metadata
elements [and] a forms model providing metadata describing forms
associated with objects.” Rather, Robinson merely relates to
“document models of business processes” or clearly “operational”
data, in stark contrast to the “core enterprise reference data” of
Appellant’s claims. This distinction is significant, for at least the
reason that it shows that Robinson, like Zargham, deals with
“operational data” or data relating to “business processes” and not the
clearly distinct data set of “core enterprise reference data” as
required in Appellant’s claims.
App. Br. 17-18 (alteration in original). In response, the Examiner finds that
“Appellant appears to assert that Robinson is directed towards operational
data and not ‘core enterprise reference data’ . . . [however] Zargham is relied
upon for teaching ‘core enterprise reference data’, thus the combination of
Zargham and Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 3.” Ans. 14. We
agree with the Examiner’s findings, and disagree with Appellant’s
contentions in this regard.
Further, we find that Appellant’s argument with respect to claim 3
inherits the deficiencies of claim 1, including Appellant’s misplaced reliance
upon the non-functional descriptive material “core enterprise reference
data,” discussed supra. Thus, we do not find Appellant’s arguments to be
persuasive on this additional basis.
Accordingly, Appellant has not convinced us of any error in the
Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction.
Appeal 2010-007077
Application 10/847,422

10
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of dependent
claim 3. Appellant has not provided separate arguments with respect to
similarly rejected dependent claims 4, 14, 15, 25, and 26, such that we
similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-13, 16-24, and 27-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
over Zargham, and the rejection is sustained.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to the unpatentability
rejection of claims 3-4, 14-15, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Zargham in view of Robinson, and the rejection is sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-34 is affirmed.
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) (2011).
AFFIRMED

msc