SALESFORCE.COM, INC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

2020000485 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
13/770,952 02/19/2013 Sridhar Palakurthy 7000-10600/828US 4169
130178 7590 09/30/2020
KHMRG (Salesforce)
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
EXAMINER
VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 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):
IPDocketing@salesforce.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRIDHAR PALAKURTHY
Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952
Technology Center 3600

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
TAWEN CHANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

2
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45,
47, and 48.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification states that “more recently cloud based data storage
has become accessible to users where databases and/or other resources
associated therewith may be shared amongst users of various companies,
organizations, etc.,” but that, “[i]n general, [] electronic-based advertising
has not yet been integrated as a service with such cloud based data storage
system.” Spec. ¶ 5. According to the Specification, the instant disclosures
“provide[] mechanisms and methods for advertisement distribution using a
multi-tenant on-demand database system,” which “enable the distribution of

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
Salesforce.com, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appellant states in the Claim Appendix to the Appeal Brief that “claims 1,
32–34, 36–39, 41–45, [and] 47–49” are on appeal. Appeal Br. 26 (Claims
App.). However, claims 34, 37, and 49 have been cancelled. See Response
to Office Action (Jan. 18, 2019); Final Act. 1 (Feb. 26, 2019). In addition,
although Appellant does not include pending claim 35 in the listing above,
the text of claim 35 is reproduced in the Claims Appendix. We also note
that, while the text of pending claim 48 is not reproduced in the Claims
Appendix, it is included in the list of claims on appeal. We therefore
understand that claims on appeal to be 1, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44,
45, 47, and 48.
Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

3
advertisements to take advantage of other data stored by and/or services
provided by the multi-tenant on-demand database system.” Id. ¶ 7.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable
medium, method, or system relating to storing content for a plurality of
tenants. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having
computer instructions stored thereon that are capable of being
executed by a computer system to cause operations comprising:
[(a)] storing, by a multi-tenant database system, content
for a plurality of tenants, wherein the content is stored using at
least one shared database table that includes one or more rows
for each of multiple tenants, wherein the database system is
configured such that private content of one tenant is not
accessible to other tenants;

[(b)] storing, by the multi-tenant database system, a first
set of supplemental content of a first type that is accessible to
multiple ones of the plurality of tenants;

[(c)] storing, by the multi-tenant database system, a
second set of supplemental content of a second type that is
tenant-specific such that portions of the second set of
supplemental content corresponding to various ones of the
plurality of tenants are not accessible to other ones of the
plurality of tenants;

[(d)] receiving information from a first tenant that
indicates properties of supplemental content to be provided in
response to requests for content of the first tenant, including
indicating to provide the first type of supplemental content with
content of the first tenant;

Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

4
[(e)] receiving information from a second tenant that
indicates properties of supplemental content to be provided in
response to requests for content of the second tenant, including
indicating to provide the second type of supplemental content
and not the first type of supplemental content with content of
the second tenant;

[(f)] storing the information from the first and second
tenants;

[(g)] in response to respective requests for content of the
first and second tenants, a first module of the multi-tenant
database system retrieving content from the at least one shared
database table;

[(h)] in response to detecting that the requested content
includes a widget that specifies supplemental content, a second
module determining supplemental content based on the stored
information from the first and second tenants, including:

[(i)] determining to distribute content from the first set of
supplemental content for the first tenant based on the
information from the first tenant; and

[(j)] determining to distribute only content from the
second set of supplemental content in response to the request
for content of the second tenant based on the information from
the second tenant; and

[(k)] automatically providing the determined
supplemental content for the first and second tenants with the
retrieved content in response to the requests, thereby securing
supplemental content of the second tenant in the second set of
supplemental content from being accessed by other ones of the
tenants and thereby ensuring that supplemental content from
other tenants is not provided with content of the second tenant.

Appeal Br. 26–27 (Claims App.) (annotations added).
Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

5
REJECTIONS3
A. Claims 1, 32, 33, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, and 484 are rejected
under pre-AIA 35U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grewal5
and Mercuri.6 Ans. 4.
B. Claim 35 is rejected under pre-AIA 35U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grewal, Mercuri, and Warshavsky.7 Ans. 20.

OPINION
A. Issues
The same issues are dispositive for the obviousness rejections over
Grewal and Mercuri and over Grewal, Mercuri, and Warshavsky. We
therefore discuss these rejections together.
The Examiner finds that Grewal discloses almost all of the limitations
of claim 1, except that it does not explicitly disclose “a first tenant, a second

3 In the Answer, the Examiner refers us to the analysis regarding patent
subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in a Non-Final Office Action
mailed November 7, 2018. Ans. 3. We acknowledge that the Examiner
found the claims to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in her analysis.
4 The Examiner states in the Answer that claims 1, 32–34, 36–39, 41, 42,
44, 45, 47, and 48 are rejected as obvious over Grewal and Mercuri.
However, as acknowledged in the Final Rejection, claims 34 and 37 have
been cancelled. See Final Act. 1; see also Response to Office Action (filed
Jan. 18, 2019).
5 Grewal et al., US 2008/0270459 A1, published Oct. 30, 2008 (hereinafter
“Grewal”).
6 Mercuri et al., US 2011/0238688 A1, published Sept. 29, 2011 (hereinafter
“Mercuri”).
7 Warshavsky et al., US 2011/0218958 A1, published Sept. 8, 2011
(hereinafter “Warshavsky”).
Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

6
tenant, etc.,” or “a widget that specifies supplemental content.” Ans. 9, 15–
16.
With respect to the limitation regarding a first and a second tenant, the
Examiner finds that Grewal “discloses functionality that is performed by
[its] system for a tenant” and further concludes that “mere duplication of
parts or functionality” — e.g., inclusion of a second tenant in Grewal’s
system — “has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected
result is produced.” Ans. 9, 15.
The Examiner also finds that Mercuri teaches an embodiment of a
content distribution system, wherein “‘a publisher may embed a widget on
a web page of the publisher that, upon preparation for display (such as
when a user visits the web page), requests content . . . from a content
store where an author has previously stored content.’” Ans. 16 (emphasis in
original). The Examiner interprets the widget described in Mercuri as
meeting the limitation in claim 1 of “a widget that specifies supplemental
content” and concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan
to incorporate Mercuri’s widget into Grewal’s application “in order to
respond in a timely way to requests for online content from users.” Id.
Finally, although the Examiner cites portions of Grewal as meeting
the limitations (d), (e), (g), and (h) in claim 1, the Examiner concludes that
these steps contain various limitations that are not positively recited “given
the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim,” and further concludes
that limitations (g) and (h) may also have “an antecedent basis problem.”
Ans. 8, 9–12.
Appellant argues that the cited prior art combination does not teach
“the supplemental content or information of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 17.
Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

7
Accordingly, Appellant contends that the cited prior art combination also
“does not teach or suggest features relating to distributing different
‘supplemental content’ that is ‘tenant-specific’ or ‘accessible to multiple’
tenants, much less ‘information’ that ‘indicates properties of supplemental
content to be provided in response to request for content of’ different
tenants.” Id.
The issue with respect to these rejections is whether a preponderance
of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims on appeal
are obvious over the cited combinations of prior art.
B. Analysis
We find Appellant to have the better arguments in this case.
Grewal teaches “a hosted multi-tenant application that utilizes per-
tenant unshared private databases”; “a middle tier . . . shared by the tenants”
that “represents the software and hardware components that provide the
hosted application to the tenants”; and a “shared configuration database” that
“stores application data that is shared among the tenants.”8 See, e.g., Grewal
¶¶ 5–8.
Grewal teaches that “the server computers utilized to provide the
hosted application may be organized into scale groups,” i.e., “a logical
grouping of servers” that “[e]ach . . . includes a shared middle-tier and a

8 “A hosted application is a software application where the software resides
on servers that are accessed through a wide-area network, such as the
Internet, rather than more traditional software that is installed on a local
server or on individual client computers.” Grewal ¶ 1.
Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

8
database-tier for supporting the tenants assigned to the scale group.” Grewal
¶ 9. Grewal teaches that
[a]n association between the tenant and the scale group is
. . . created in the shared configuration database. When a
request is received from a tenant to access the hosted
application, the shared configuration database is
consulted to locate the scale group hosting the private,
unshared database for the tenant. Once the appropriate
scale group has been located, the request is redirected to
the middle-tier in the appropriate scale group for
processing.”

Id. ¶¶ 9, 28, 35–37, Fig. 4. Grewal teaches that, “[o]nce the appropriate
scale group database server 214 has been identified, a connection is made to
the identified database server 214 to obtain any private tenant data necessary
to respond to the incoming request,” and “the data is utilized to respond to
the incoming tenant request.” Id. ¶ 37.
The Examiner relies on Grewal for all of the limitations of claim 1
except for the limitation regarding “widget that specifies supplemental
content.” Ans. 15–16. The Examiner cites Mercuri as disclosing that
limitation.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case that claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Grewal and
Mercuri, at least because the Examiner has not shown that the cited
combination of prior art teaches or suggests limitation (k), regarding
“automatically providing the determined supplemental content for the first
and second tenants with the retrieved content in response to the requests” for
content of the first and second tenants.
Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

9
For disclosure of limitation (k) in the prior art, the Examiner cites to
the following disclosure from Grewal:
(“...A method for providing a hosted application to a
plurality of tenants, the method comprising: receiving a
request for the hosted application from one of the
plurality of tenants; in response to the request, locating
a private unshared database associated with the one of
the plurality of tenants; and responding to the request
for the hosted application utilizing data stored in the
identified private unshared database ....”, claim 8, see
also Fig. 4 and associated disclosure).
Ans. 15.
The cited passage discusses respond to a tenant’s request using data
stored in the tenant’s private unshared database. Assuming for the sake of
argument that any data stored in a tenant’s private unshared database may be
considered to meet the limitation of “a second set of supplement data”
because they are tenant-specific and not accessible to other tenants, the
Examiner still has not explained how the cited passage discloses or renders
obvious “automatically providing the determined supplement content for the
first . . . tenant with the retrieved content in response to the requests,” given
that earlier limitation (i) recites “determining to distribute content from the
first set of supplement content,” i.e., content that is accessible to multiple
ones of the plurality of the tenants, “for the first tenant.”
In response to similar arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner
notes that no special definition is provided for the term “distribute” and that
“the term ‘supplemental content[] is not mentioned in the instant
specification.” Ans. 22. The Examiner states that, therefore, these terms are
given their “broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification
and in view of one skilled in the art.” Id.
Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

10
Although we agree that the Specification does not use the term
“supplemental content” and that claim term should be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, the Examiner has not
provided her construction of either “distribute” or “supplemental data.” It is
not clear, even under the broadest reasonable interpretation of either
“distribute” or “supplemental content,” how the passage in Grewal cited by
the Examiner renders obvious providing supplemental content that is
accessible to multiple ones of a plurality of the tenants (i.e., “first set of
supplemental content”), given that the cited passage explicitly states that it is
data stored in the private unshared database that is used to respond to the
request.
The Examiner next points out that Grewal teaches a shared
configuration database that “stores application data that is shared among the
tenants,” which the Examiner interprets as “content of a first type that is
accessible to multiple ones of a plurality of the tenants.” Ans. 23. The
Examiner notes that Grewal teaches (1) using data in the shared
configuration database to identify the scale group and server associated with
the tenant when a tenant request to access the hosted application is received
and (2) redirecting the request to the identified scale group. Id. at 22. The
Examiner asserts that these teachings are interpreted as “determining to
distribute content from the first set of supplemental content for the first
tenant,” as recited in claim 1. Id. The Examiner similarly notes that Grewal
teaches making connection to the identified server (i.e., the server
maintaining the tenant’s unshared organization database), obtaining any
private tenant data necessary to respond to the incoming request, and using
the data to respond. Id. at 22–23. The Examiner asserts that these teachings
Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

11
are interpreted as distributing the first set of supplemental content for the
first tenant.9 Id. at 22–23.
We are not persuaded. Although Grewal teaches data that is shared
among multiple tenants, and even assuming that all such content may be
interpreted as “the first set of supplemental content,” the Examiner has not
shown how such shared content is “automatically provid[ed] . . . for the first
. . . tenant[] with the retrieved content in response to [a] request[],” as recited
in claim 1. Instead, at least in the passages cited by the Examiner, the shared
content is used only to locate the private tenant data used to respond to the
request.
The Examiner asserts that “it is not an accurate allegation” that “all
the disclosed ‘application data’ for a given tenant that is actually distributed
by Grewal in response to requests appears to be tenant-specific and
unshared with other tenants,” because Grewal explicitly discloses that the
shared configuration database stores application data that is shared among
the tenants. Ans. 24–25. Nevertheless, the Examiner has not cited to any
disclosure in Grewal that such shared data is provided in response to a
tenant request. To the extent the Examiner’s position is that it would have
been obvious to a skilled artisan that such shared data may be provided, or
would have been inherently provided, with the retrieved private content in
response to a request, the Examiner has not sufficiently articulated her
reasoning. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) (“[R]ejections on

9 We note that the element (k) requires “providing” the determined
supplemental content, rather than “distributing” such content. However, our
analysis is not changed based on this difference in wording.
Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

12
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.”).
Finally, in the Answer, the Examiner appears to assert that limitations
relating to actions take “in response to . . . request for content” are
contingent limitations. Ans. 11, 12. We address this issue here because,
although the Examiner does not explicitly raise this issue with respect to
limitation (k), on which we base our reversal, limitation (k) contains similar
language in that it recites “automatically providing the determined
supplemental content for the first and second tenants with the retrieved
content in response to the requests.”
We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s position. As an initial
matter, independent claims 1 and 45 are claims relating to computer-
readable medium and a system, respectively. Assuming that a request is a
“condition precedent” for limitations (g) through (k), “[t]he broadest
reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a
function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still
requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.”
Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007848, 2016 WL 6277792, at *7 (PTAB
Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential).
We next address claim 39, which is a method claim. We agree that
“[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim
having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be
performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed
because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” MPEP § 2111.04.
However, we are not persuaded by the Examiner’s argument because we
Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

13
conclude that a skilled artisan, considering the claim in the context of the
Specification as a whole, would interpret the claim to be limited to a method
in which requests for content of both the first and second tenants are
received. Unlike the method claim in Schulhauser, claim 39 is not drafted in
such a way that two steps have prerequisite conditions that are mutually
exclusive. Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3–*4 (describing claim
comprising steps of “comparing the electrocardiac signal data with a
threshold” and either “determining the current activity level of the subject”
or “triggering an alarm” depending on whether the electrocardiac signal data
is or is not within the threshold).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over Grewal and Mercuri. Claims 39 and 45, the only other
independent claims, contain limitations similar to that discussed above for
claim 1, and we reverse the rejection of those claims for the same reasons.
We also reverse the rejections of claims 32, 33, 36, 38, 41, 42, 44, 47, and
48, which each depend from claims 1, 39, or 45. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103
if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).
The Examiner rejects claim 35 as obvious over Grewal, Mercuri, and
Warshavsky. However, the Examiner cites Warshavsky only for the
dependent limitation, “wherein at least a portion of the supplemental content
is created externally from the computer system.” Ans. 20–21. We therefore
reverse the rejection of claim 35 for the same reasons as stated above with
respect to claim 1.

Appeal 2020-000485
Application 13/770,952

14
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 32, 33,
36, 38, 39,
41, 42, 44,
45, 47, 48
103(a) Grewal, Mercuri 1, 32, 33, 36,
38, 39, 41,
42, 44, 45,
47, 48
35 103(a) Grewal, Mercuri,
Warshavsky
35
Overall
Outcome
1, 32, 33, 35,
36, 38, 39,
41, 42, 44,
45, 47, 48

REVERSED