Ex Parte Thomas

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 3, 2012

11363234 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 3, 2012)

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.
11/363,234 02/28/2006 Susan Marie Thomas 07781.0215-00 5627
60668 7590 01/04/2012
SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
WU, YICUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2012 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 SUSAN MARIE THOMAS
____________
Appeal 2009-013593
Application 11/363,234
1

Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
Filed on February 28, 2006. The real party in interest is SAP AG Corp.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2009-013593
Application 11/363,234

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-26. App. Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method, computer-readable storage medium, and
system for schema mapping and the transformation of data. Spec. ¶ [001].
Illustrative Claim
1. A computer-implemented method for schema
mapping and the transformation of data associated with first
and second documents, the method comprising:

displaying simultaneously to a user, with a graphical user
interface (GUI), a representation of a schema instance of the
first document and a representation of a schema instance of the
second document within a spreadsheet application, the first and
second documents having different data schemas and being
instantiated with elements containing data values stored within
cells of the spreadsheet;

acquiring, from the user, at least one association usable to
map at least a first element of the first document to at least a
second element of the second document, wherein each of the
first and second elements contain layout data; and

storing the association including the data values
corresponding to the first and second elements.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Anwar US 5,767,854 June 16, 1998
Daniel US 6,785,689 B1 Aug. 31, 2004

Appeal 2009-013593
Application 11/363,234

3
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Daniel and Anwar. Ans. 3-7.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that Daniel’s disclosure of allowing a user to view
both reference and customer schema within two separate windows in a
single display does not teach or suggest “displaying simultaneously to a
user, with a graphical user interface (GUI), a representation of a schema
instance of the first document and a representation of a schema instance of
the second document within a spreadsheet application, the first and second
documents having different data schemas and being instantiated with
elements containing data values stored within cells of the spreadsheet,” as
recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 7 (emphasis in original).
Moreover, Appellant argues that while Anwar discloses a spreadsheet, the
spreadsheet is not used for schema mapping. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4.
Rather, Appellant alleges using Anwar’s spreadsheet as another means to
display data in an n-gon (i.e., a polygon with n sides). Id. Further,
Appellant contends that Anwar only discloses performing schema mapping
using a schema list and a tree. Id. Therefore, Appellant contends that
Anwar does not teach or suggest a “spreadsheet application” having any
relation to “representation of a schema instance,” as claimed. App. Br. 8-9;
Reply Br. 4.
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Anwar (i.e., figure 7 and column 19, lines 5-
35, 42-45, and 50-51), and not Daniel, teaches or suggests “within a
spreadsheet application and data values stored within cells of a spreadsheet,”
Appeal 2009-013593
Application 11/363,234

4
as recited in independent claim 1. Ans. 4, 7, and 8. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Anwar’s disclosure of a Meta-Data Manager
(hereinafter “MDM”) that provides a semantic bridge between logical
schema and physical database schema teaches or suggests that Anwar could
be used for schema mapping. Id. at 8 and 9.

II. ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Daniel
and Anwar renders independent claims 1, 11, and 17 unpatentable? In
particular, the issue turns on whether the proffered combination teaches or
suggests “displaying simultaneously to a user, with a graphical user interface
(GUI), a representation of a schema instance of the first document and a
representation of a schema instance of the second document within a
spreadsheet application, the first and second documents having different data
schemas and being instantiated with elements containing data values stored
within cells of the spreadsheet,” as recited in independent claim 1, and
similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 17.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (hereinafter “FF”) are shown by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Daniel
FF 1. Daniel’s figure 1 depicts a system (100) for consolidating
multiple source content schemas into a single target content schema. Col. 3,
ll. 3-5. In particular, once a user selects a reference schema (104) and a
customer schema (110) for mapping, Daniel discloses that a schema mapper
Appeal 2009-013593
Application 11/363,234

5
(106) or another component of the system (100) may allow the user to view
the reference schema (104) and customer schema (110) within two separate
windows in a single display. Col. 6, ll. 25-29.
Anwar
FF 2. Anwar discloses invoking a Spreadsheet Manager (hereinafter
“SM”) in order to see information, such as the manufacturers of tennis
rackets in America, the make of tennis rackets, and the desired racket
attributes, in a spreadsheet form. Col. 19, ll. 1-7. Anwar discloses that the
SM uses well known techniques to display the appropriate spreadsheet in an
active graphics display window. Id. at ll. 7-9.
FF 3. Anwar’s figure 7 illustrates a MDM that provides a semantic
bridge between logical database schema and physical database schema. Id.
at ll. 37-38. Put another way, Anwar discloses that the MDM explains the
layout of data repositories such as files, spreadsheets, relational databases,
object oriented databases, legacy databases, etc. Id. at ll. 42-45. Anwar also
discloses that the MDM operates by communicating with a database
manager, reading the data dictionaries, matching the foreign keys, extracting
the join information, or by reading spreadsheets and files, etc. Id. at
ll. 45-48.

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 11, and 17
We do not find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 11, and 17. In particular, independent claim 1 recites,
inter alia:
Appeal 2009-013593
Application 11/363,234

6
displaying simultaneously to a user, with a graphical user
interface (GUI), a representation of a schema instance of the
first document and a representation of a schema instance of the
second document within a spreadsheet application, the first and
second documents having different data schemas and being
instantiated with elements containing data values stored within
cells of the spreadsheet.

As detailed in the Findings of Fact section, Daniel discloses that a
user may select both reference and customer schema for mapping, and view
each schema within two separate windows in a single display. FF 1.
Consequently, we find that Daniel’s disclosure teaches or suggests
simultaneously displaying to a user an instant of a first schema and an
instance of a second schema side-by-side in two separate windows of a GUI.
Next, Anwar discloses a SM that uses well known techniques to
display spreadsheets in an active graphics display window. FF 2. Moreover,
Anwar discloses a MDM that provides a semantic bridge between two
different schemas by reading the information contained in a spreadsheet and
explaining the layout of such spreadsheet. FF3. We find that Anwar’s
disclosure of an SM amounts to a spreadsheet application. We also find that
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that Anwar’s disclosure
teaches or suggests that the MDM uses the spreadsheets displayed by the
SM for schema mapping.
In summary, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
appreciated incorporating Anwar’s spreadsheet application (FF 2) into
Daniel’s GUI, which contains two separate windows (FF 1), such that an
instance of a first schema and an instance of a second schema can be
simultaneously displayed side-by-side in two separate spreadsheets.
Moreover, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood
Appeal 2009-013593
Application 11/363,234

7
that Daniel discloses two different data schemas (i.e., reference and
customer schema (FF 1)), and storing the attributes of each instance of
schema within the cells of Anwar’s corresponding spreadsheets. Thus, we
find that the combination of Daniel and Anwar teaches or suggests the
disputed claim limitation. It follows that the Examiner has not erred in
concluding that the combination of Daniel and Anwar renders independent
claim 1 unpatentable.
Independent claims 11 and 17 either recite the same or a similar claim
limitation as independent claim 1. See App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2-4.
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed supra, the Examiner has not erred
in finding that the combination of Daniel and Anwar renders independent
claims 11 and 17 unpatentable
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 18, and 19
Appellant contends that Daniel fails to teach or suggest “indicating to
the user a second association between a third element of the first document
and fourth element of the second document,” wherein the indication is based
on a “user-specified probability,” as recited in dependent claims 2 and 3, and
similarly recited in dependent claims 12, 13, 18, and 19. App. Br. 11; Reply
Br. 5. In particular, Appellant argues that Daniel, namely column 10, lines
19-21, does not teach or suggest the disputed claim limitations. App. Br. 11.
In response, the Examiner finds that Daniel’s disclosure of a user performing
a series of actions, which may involve more documents or associations,
teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations. Ans. 10. The Examiner
also finds that Daniel’s disclosure of a user selecting a filter function reads
on a “user-specified probability,” as claimed. Id. Further, Appellant
generally alleges that Daniel’s disclosure of a filter function does not teach
Appeal 2009-013593
Application 11/363,234

8
or suggest the claimed “probability.” Reply Br. 6. We do not agree with
Appellant.
Appellant merely reiterates what the disputed claim limitations recite
and makes general allegations as to the teachings of Daniel. See App. Br.
11; Reply Br. 5-6. Merely reciting the language of the claims and asserting
that the cited prior art reference does not teach or suggest each claim
limitation is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (“A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”); cf. In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). It
follows that the Examiner has not erred in concluding that the combination
of Daniel and Anwar renders dependent claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 18, and 19
unpatentable.
Claims 4-10, 14-16, and 20-26
Appellant does not provide separate and distinct arguments for
patentability with respect to dependent claims 4-10, 14-16, and 20-26. See
App. Br. 6-11; Reply Br. 2-5. Therefore, we select independent claims 1,
11, and 17 as representative of these cited claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Consequently, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting
Appeal 2009-013593
Application 11/363,234

9
dependent claims 4-10, 14-16, and 20-26 for the same reasons set forth in
our discussion of independent claims 1, 11, and 17.

V. CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-26 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-26.
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

ELD