NETSUITE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 7, 2020

13893053 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2020)

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.
13/893,053 05/13/2013 Cherry Ann Alib-Bulatao ORA170704 (NS-46) 7798
51444 7590 10/07/2020
Kraguljac Law Group/Oracle
P.O. Box 507
Cleveland, OH 44017
EXAMINER
BAHL, SANGEETA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
DDay@KragLaw.com
MPusti@KragLaw.com
PTOMail@KragLaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHERRY ANN ALIB-BULATAO, TEDDY T. CAGUIOA,
EVAN MARK GOLDBERG, and BRAD STOUTIMORE
____________

Appeal 2020-001435
Application 13/893,053
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ERIC B. GRIMES, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal1,2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
method of providing information contained in a multi-tenant integrated
enterprise information system to a user. The Examiner rejected the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Oracle
International Corporation (see Appeal Br. 2).
2 We have considered and herein refer to the Specification of May 13, 2013
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action of Dec. 10, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief
of Aug. 12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer of Oct. 16, 2019
(“Ans.”); and Reply Brief of Dec. 16, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-001435
Application 13/893,053

2

Statement of the Case
Background
“[S]ubstantial efforts have been directed to Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) systems that integrate the capabilities of several historically
separate business computing system into a common system, with a view
toward streamlining business processes and increasing efficiencies on a
business-wide level” (Spec. ¶ 2). “[S]ubstantial efforts have also been
directed to integrated Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems,
with a view toward obtaining a better understanding of customers, enhancing
service to existing customers, and acquiring new, profitable customers” (id.
¶ 3). The Specification teaches “a variety of client applications . . .
incorporating and/or incorporated into a variety of client computing devices
104 may communicate with a multi-tenant enterprise information system
108” (id. ¶ 4).
“In order to improve efficiency and facilitate an employee’s role
within an organization, it would be advantageous to be able [to]
automatically provide users of the multitenant enterprise information system
108 with notifications and/or updates to the information stored in that multi-
tenant data processing platform, where those notifications and/or updates are
specific to a particular user’s role within the enterprise” (Spec. ¶ 9).
The Claims
Claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–17, 19, and 20 are on appeal. We note that
Appellant does not argue the claims separately (see Appeal Br. 29), so
dependent claims stand or fall with claim 1 because separate reasons for
their patentability were not provided in the Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-001435
Application 13/893,053

3

Independent claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below with
bracketing added to identify claim limitations:
1. [Pre] A method of providing information contained in a
multi-tenant integrated enterprise information system to a user
of the multi-tenant integrated enterprise information system,
comprising:
[a] generating a profile for the user defining the
information and including: (i) a set of rules for a plurality of
business applications of the multi-tenant integrated enterprise
information system, each of the set of rules corresponding to at
least one business application of the multi-tenant integrated
enterprise information system, (ii) a project associated with a
record that is modified as part of the project, and (iii) a
condition input by the user to control a format of the
information contained in the multi-tenant integrated enterprise
information system that is provided to the user;
[b] detecting a change to information included in the
record for the project specified by the user, wherein the record
is stored in one or more databases interconnected to the
business applications of the multi-tenant integrated enterprise
information system, wherein the change is implemented in
response to an instruction from at least one of the business
applications as a result of user input into at least one of the
business applications of the multi-tenant integrated enterprise
information system;
[c] evaluating the set of rules to determine if the
detected change satisfies a trigger condition defined by the set
of rules;
[d] accessing the information that was changed in the
business applications of the multi-tenant integrated enterprise
information system in response to a determination that the
detected change satisfies the trigger condition defined by the set
of rules;
Appeal 2020-001435
Application 13/893,053

4

[e] formatting at least a portion of the information that
was changed in accordance with the condition input by the user
and contained in the profile; and
[f] controlling transmission of the formatted
information that was changed to a third-party social application,
wherein the third-party social application is separate from the
multi-tenant integrated enterprise information system, thereby
bypassing the multi-tenant integrated enterprise information
system to distribute the information that was changed to the
user via a channel for the project, wherein the channel for the
project is associated with the third-party social application
outside of an environment of the multi-tenant integrated
enterprise information system, allowing the user to view the
formatted portion of the information without leaving the third-
party social application.

The Rejection3
The Examiner rejected claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–17, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kemp4 and Ramsay5 (Final Act. 9–21).
The Examiner finds Kemp teaches most of the claimed elements (see
Final Act. 9–12) but finds Kemp does not specifically teach the limitation
“detecting a change to information included in the record, wherein the
record is stored in one or more databases interconnected to the business
applications of the multi-tenant integrated enterprise information system”
(id. at 13, italics omitted). The Examiner finds Ramsay teaches this
limitation, citing various portions of Ramsay (id.). The Examiner finds the

3 We note that the Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in
the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 3).
4 Kemp et al., US 2012/0102063 A1, published Apr. 26, 2012.
5 Ramsay, Jr. et al., US 8,145,678 B2, issued Mar. 27, 2012. The parties
refer to this reference as “Ramsay” so we shall do so as well.
Appeal 2020-001435
Application 13/893,053

5

combination obvious “for the motivation of providing informational feeds
and commenting functionality to users of a social computing environment”
(id., citing Ramsay 2:16–24).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does a preponderance of the
evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Kemp and
Ramsay render claim 1 obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Kemp teaches, regarding the preamble, “providing information
updates in an information feed system and, more specifically, . . .
techniques for analyzing and responding to information updates” (Kemp ¶
3). Kemp teaches that “products may be configured or designed for use in a
multi-tenant database environment” (Kemp ¶ 40). Kemp explains that the
“term ‘multi-tenant database system’ can refer to those systems in which
various elements of hardware and software of the database system may be
shared by one or more customers” (Kemp ¶ 58).
2. Kemp teaches, regarding the user profile in step (a), that a
“‘user profile’ or ‘user’s profile’ is generally configured to store and
maintain data about the user of the database system” (Kemp ¶ 59). Kemp
teaches that “different users will have different capabilities with regard to
accessing and modifying application and database information, depending
on a user’s security or permission level, also called authorization” (Kemp
¶ 74).
3. Kemp teaches, regarding the set of rules in step (a)(i), “security
rules for determining whether a user has access to a record can be performed
in a variety of ways . . . For example, a security level table can specify
Appeal 2020-001435
Application 13/893,053

6

whether a user can see a particular type of record and/or particular records”
(Kemp ¶ 237). Kemp teaches:
In some implementations, a subscription center acts as a
centralized place in a database application (e.g. application
platform 18) to manage which records a user subscribes to, and
which field updates the user wants to see in feed tracked
updates. The subscription center can use a subscription table to
keep track of the subscriptions of various users. In one
implementation, the subscription center shows a list of all the
items (users and records) a user is subscribed to.
(Kemp ¶ 245).
4. Kemp teaches, regarding the modified project records in step
(a)(ii), that “a user of a database system may not easily know when
important information in the database has changed, e.g., about a project . . .
Implementations can provide feed tracked updates about such changes and
other events, thereby keeping users informed” (Kemp ¶ 67).
5. Kemp teaches, regarding the information format control by user
in step (a)(iii), that:
In another implementation, the user can specify how the feed
tracked updates are to be displayed and/or sent to the user. For
example, a user can specify a font for the text, a location of
where the feed can be selected and displayed, amount of text to
be displayed, and other text or symbols to be displayed (e.g.
importance flags).
(Kemp ¶ 137).
6. Kemp teaches, regarding step (b), that “‘following’ of a
database record . . . allows a user to track the progress of that record.
Updates to the record, also referred to herein as changes, can occur and be
noted on an information feed such as the record feed or the news feed of a
user subscribed to the record” (Kemp ¶ 39). Kemp teaches “[t]ypes of such
Appeal 2020-001435
Application 13/893,053

7

updates can include field changes in a data record, posts such as explicit text
or characters submitted by a user” (id.). Kemp teaches “[i]n another
implementation, feed items in a profile feed could include posts made by the
particular user and feed tracked changes (feed tracked updates) initiated
based on actions of the particular user” (Kemp ¶ 65).
7. Kemp teaches, regarding step (c), that a “determination may be
made as to whether the selected information update includes information
satisfying a trigger condition associated with the data object creation rule”
(Kemp ¶ 45; cf. Kemp ¶ 253 (“In one implementation, this determination can
occur by first obtaining the criteria and then determining objects that satisfy
the criteria.”)).
8. Kemp teaches, regarding step (d), that “[i]n some
implementations, a designated action may be performed for an information
update when a trigger condition is detected. The action may include . . .
creating a new information update” (Kemp ¶ 44).
9. Kemp teaches, regarding step (e), that “a trigger rule may be
configured to translate an information update from one language (e.g.,
English) to another language (e.g., French) when the system detects that the
information update includes the text string ‘&translate’” (Kemp ¶ 47; cf.
Kemp ¶ 137 (“the user can specify how the feed tracked updates are to be
displayed and/or sent to the user. For example, a user can specify a font for
the text”)).
10. Kemp teaches, regarding step (f), “creating an information
update in a social networking system accessible via a network such as the
Internet (e.g., Twittet®), or performing any other action capable of being
performed by the system,” thereby allowing users to view the information on
Appeal 2020-001435
Application 13/893,053

8

a third party social application, rather than the tenant integrated information
system (see Kemp ¶ 44).
11. Ramsay teaches “an enterprise-based social computing system
[that] can be configured to provide event feeds to social networking
application users” (Ramsay 2:28–30).
12. Ramsay teaches, regarding step (b), that:
Components of the system 100 can operate to collect and
filter information (e.g., user events) associated with one or
more enterprise users including information associated with a
task, announcement assignment, a comment, and/or other
operation within the enterprise. For example, information
associated with an employee promotion, an employee
anniversary, employee comment, a completed project or
milestone, posted information, etc. can be collected from one
or more back-end systems and used in part to generate one or
more events for one or more event feeds.
(Ramsay 5:52–61).
13. Ramsay teaches, regarding step (b), that “retrieved events are
communicated to the events pool 604. For example, the events pool 604 can
include one or more database systems” (Ramsay 20:36–38).
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Final Act. 9–21; FF 1–13) and agree that
the claims are obvious over Kemp and Ramsay. We address Appellant’s
arguments below.
Appeal 2020-001435
Application 13/893,053

9

Appellant contends:
The combination of Kemp and Ramsay fails to teach, or render
obvious, detecting and controlling the transmission of changed
information included in a record for a project stored in one or
more databases connected to a multi-tenant integrated
enterprise information system, and transmitting that changed
information to a third-party social application.
(Appeal Br. 30). Appellant contends “Kemp does not disclose detecting a
change in a record for a project stored in one or more databases connected to
a multi-tenant integrated enterprise information system, which is
subsequently formatted and transmitted to a social application” (id.).
Appellant contends “[h]owever, Ramsay, like Kemp, does not teach
detecting, formatting and transmitting changed information in a record for a
project included in a database of a multi-tenant integrated enterprise
information system to a third-party social application” (id.). Lastly,
Appellant contends “Ramsey also fails to teach detecting a change to
information included in one or more databases interconnected to business
applications of a multi-tenant integrated enterprise information system, and
formatting and controlling transmission of the changed information to a
social application as recited in claim 1” (id. at 31).
We are not persuaded by these arguments because “the test [for
obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant argues the references separately contending
that neither Kemp or Ramsay individually teach all the elements of claim 1.
However, “[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Appeal 2020-001435
Application 13/893,053

10

Cir. 1986). In determining obviousness, furthermore, a reference “must be
read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the
prior art as a whole.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Kemp teaches an integrated multi-
tenant integrated enterprise information system (FF 1–5, 7–10), and relevant
to the “detecting a change to information” limitation, Kemp teaches that
“‘following’ of a database record . . . allows a user to track the progress of
that record” and that “changes, can occur and be noted on an information
feed such as the record feed or the news feed of a user subscribed to the
record” (FF 6). Kemp further explains that “feed items in a profile feed
could include posts made by the particular user and feed tracked changes
(feed tracked updates) initiated based on actions of the particular user” (id.).
Thus, Kemp describes step [b] of claim 1 of detecting changes in a database
record (FF 10).
As to Appellant’s argument regarding “formatting and controlling
transmission” of steps [e] and [f] of the claims (Appeal Br. 31), Kemp also
explains that “the user can specify how the feed tracked updates are to be
displayed and/or sent to the user. For example, a user can specify a font for
the text” (FF 9).
Thus, Kemp recognizes that changes can be detected and noted on the
information feed and that the changes can be controlled by users and based
on user actions (FF 6, 10) as required by claim 1. Further, Kemp teaches
that “products may be configured or designed for use in a multi-tenant
database environment” (FF 1).
However, the Examiner acknowledges that “Kemp does not
specifically teach . . . wherein the record is stored in one or more databases
Appeal 2020-001435
Application 13/893,053

11

interconnected to the business applications of the multi-tenant integrated
enterprise information system” (Final Act. 13).
Ramsay teaches system components that “can operate to collect and
filter information (e.g., user events) associated with one or more enterprise
users including information associated with a task” and teaches that such
information “can be collected from one or more back-end systems and used
in part to generate one or more events for one or more event feeds” (FF 12).
Ramsay explains that “retrieved events are communicated to the events pool
604. For example, the events pool 604 can include one or more database
systems” (FF 13). Thus, Ramsay teaches collecting information from back-
end systems that are interconnected with databases in the enterprise (multi-
tenant) information system.
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
incorporate the interconnected record storage system of Ramsay with the
multi-tenant database environment of Kemp in order to provide
“informational feeds and commenting functionality to users of a social
computing environment” (Final Act. 13, citing Ramsay 2:16–24).
Conclusion of Law
A preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that Kemp and Ramsay render claim 1 obvious.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–10,
12–17, 19, 20
103(a) Ramsay, Kemp 1–5, 7–10,
12–17, 19, 20

Appeal 2020-001435
Application 13/893,053

12

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED