Ex Parte Tarnoff et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2012

11103902 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte FINUALA TARNOFF, DAVID S. BOWEN, LEONARD
ROY OPPENHEIMER, and JOHN MARTIN PITSTICK
________________

Appeal 2010-003613
Application 11/103,902
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, 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 rejection
of claims 1, 3-9, 11 and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-003613
Application 11/103,902

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
The Invention
In general, the invention is directed to techniques for
moving multidimensional data between software systems, such
as enterprise software systems. Specifically, the techniques
provide mechanisms for defining inter-system "links" for
automatically moving data among different databases
associated with the enterprise software systems.
Spec. ¶ [0006], “SUMMARY”.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows (emphasis added to
contested limitations):
1. A method for exporting data from a software system
comprising:
defining a link from a first software application to a second
software application by:
identifying a source data cube associated with the first
software application and a target data cube associated
with the second software application,
identifying a source dimension of the source data cube
and a target dimension of the target data cube, and
defining a mapping between one or more items of the
source dimension and one or more items of the target
dimension,
wherein the link specifies a live source area storing current
multidimensional data in the source data cube of a
multidimensional database associated with the first software

1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed
Aug. 19, 2009; the originally-filed Specification (Spec.); the Final Office
Action (FOA) mailed Mar. 26, 2009; and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.)
mailed Oct. 26, 2009.
Appeal 2010-003613
Application 11/103,902

3
application and a live target area of a multidimensional
database storing current multidimensional data in the target data
cube associated with the second software application,
wherein the multidimensional database of the second software
application includes a staging area to process import data to be
imported into the second software application, wherein the
staging area of the second software application is separate from
the live target area of the second software application; and
automatically moving, by a computer, multidimensional data
from the live source area directly to the live target area in
accordance with the link by bypassing the staging area of the
second software application.
Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Crozier 5,701,423 Dec. 23, 1997
Aronoff 2004/0162836 Aug. 19, 2004
Berger US2005/0278458 Dec. 15, 2005 (filed Jun. 9, 2004)
Goldstein 7,191,183 Mar. 13, 2007 (filed Apr. 5, 2002)
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berger in view of Goldstein
(Ans. 3-4; FOA 2; and App. Br. 3).
2. The Examiner has rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Berger and Goldstein in view of Crozier (Ans. 8;
FOA 7; and App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2010-003613
Application 11/103,902

4
3. The Examiner has rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Berger and Goldstein in view of Aronoff (Ans. 9;
FOA 8; and App. Br. 3).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
When it is necessary to select elements of various teachings in order
to form the claimed invention, we ascertain whether there is any suggestion
or motivation in the prior art to make the selection made by applicant.
Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In KSR, the Court held the following:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known
to the design community or present in the marketplace; and
the background knowledge possessed by a person having
ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether
there was an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. To
facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit. See
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (C.A. Fed. 2006)
(“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained
by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). As our
precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter
of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appeal 2010-003613
Application 11/103,902

5
ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 3-9, 11 and 22
Appellants contend that “Goldstein discloses creating analytic data
stores 124 using data imported from source data stores 100 . . . [and]
discloses using the temporary data store to store temporary data during the
creation of analytic data stores 124 from data imported from source data
stores 100. . . [a] temporary data store used during creation of an analytic
data store is not a staging area to process import data to be imported into a
software application . . . [and t]herefore the temporary data stores 118 cannot
properly be interpretted [sic] as a staging area, as required by claim 1.”
(App. Br. 8-9).
In addition, Appellants contend that “in the process of importing data
from source data stores 100 to analytic data stores 124, Goldstein requires
that data is first stored in staging data stores 114 . . . [and] does not disclose
any method for bypassing these staging data tables 114.” (App. Br. 9).
Appellants also contend that “Berger in view of Goldstein fails to
disclose or suggest automatically moving, by a computer, multidimensional
data from the live source area directly to the live target area in accordance
with the link by bypassing the staging area of the second software
application, as required by claim 1 . . . Goldstein discloses that data from
100 must first pass through staging data stores 114 . . . [and] does not
disclose that any data can bypass staging data stores 114, and in fact
describes that data is always first imported into staging data stores 114.”
(App. Br. 9, emphasis in original).
Appeal 2010-003613
Application 11/103,902

6
Appellants further contend that the Examiner has erred by asserting
that “Berger in view of Goldstein also fails to disclose or suggest defining a
link from a first software application to a second software application by
defining a mapping between one or more items of a source dimension of a
source data cube associated with the first software application and one or
more items of a target dimension of a target data cube associated with the
second software application, as required by claim 1.” (App. Br 10).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Berger
and Goldstein teaches or suggests “automatically moving, by a computer,
multidimensional data from the live source area directly to the live target
area in accordance with the link by bypassing the staging area of the second
software application”, as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Issue: We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with the
Examiner’s conclusions that the combination of Berger with Goldstein
teaches or suggests “automatically moving, by a computer, multidimensional
data from the live source area directly to the live target area in accordance
with the link by bypassing the staging area of the second software
application.”
We agree with Appellants’ contention that Goldstein’s temporary data
stores 118 cannot properly be interpreted as a staging area, as recited in
claim 1. We further agree with Appellants that Goldstein does not teach or
suggest that any data can bypass staging data stores 114.
Appeal 2010-003613
Application 11/103,902

7
Specifically, we find that the Examiner has not made a prima facie
case for unpatentability as the Examiner has failed to identify where the art
of record teaches or suggests the particular limitation of the claim that
requires moving data from the live source area directly to the live target area
by bypassing the staging area of the second software application. For
example, Goldstein merely teaches that interrogation engine 116 uses source
data from staging data stores 114 to create new variables from the source
data, the product of which is analytic data store 124. Further, temporary
data stores 118 are used, inter alia, to store temporary data tables that are
created during the creation of analytic data stores 124. (See Goldstein at col.
5, l. 14 through col. 6, l. 6, and Fig. 1).
Contrary to the Examiner’s assertions, we see no teaching or
suggestion in Goldstein of moving data directly to a live target area by
bypassing the staging area of a second software application. Further, we are
unable to readily ascertain any other teaching in the art of record that teaches
or suggests the claim limitation at issue, as variously recited in the claims on
appeal.
Having found at least one error by the Examiner in analyzing the art
of record and construing the claims, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11 and 22. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11 and 22.
With respect to claim 5 which depends from independent claim 1, the
Examiner has not shown that Crozier cures the deficiencies of Berger and
Goldstein. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.
Appeal 2010-003613
Application 11/103,902

8
With respect to claim 22 which depends from independent claim 1,
the Examiner has not shown that Aronoff cures the deficiencies of Berger
and Goldstein. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.
DECISION
1. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, and
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Berger and Goldstein is
reversed.
2. The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berger and Goldstein in view of Crozier
is reversed.
3. The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berger and Goldstein in view of
Aronoff is reversed.
REVERSED

tj