SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2021

2020004919 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2021)

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.
14/621,382 02/13/2015 MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM P 130993US01 (S21.215) 6245
52025 7590 09/29/2021
SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
GOFMAN, ALEX N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2021 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):
colabella@bmtpatent.com
martin@BMTPATENT.COM
szpara@bmtpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM P
____________________

Appeal 2020 -004919
Application 14/621,3821
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC S. FRAHM, and CATHERINE SHIANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention concerns improving the user experience when
consuming business data. A framework middleware receives a request via an
application to establish connection with multiple systems. Once connected,

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant states that the real party in interest is SAP SE.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 7 and 14 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2020-004919
Application 14/621,382

2
the business data may be retrieved. The business data may then be
transformed by triggering a transformation data model. Contextual
information associated with the business data may be determined from the
transformed business data. That contextual information may be displayed on
a user interface or a dashboard that is instantiated by the application. The
contextual information is customized based on user preferences.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system to improve user experience when consuming
business data, comprising:
a processor, and
one or more memory devices communicatively coupled
with the processor and storing instructions related to:
receiving a request, at a framework middleware via an
application, to establish a connection with a plurality of
business management systems;
upon establishing the connection, the framework
middleware retrieving business data from the plurality of
business management systems, wherein a generic layer in the
framework middleware provides a common interface to
optimize the retrieval of the business data from the plurality of
business management systems;
based on an execution of a plurality of routines in the
framework middleware, encrypting the retrieved business data,
wherein the business data is encrypted sequentially by a
sequential encryption algorithm;
based on an execution of the plurality of routines in the
framework middleware, triggering a system landscape
transformation model to transform the retrieved business data,
wherein transformation of the retrieved business data includes
modification of the retrieved business data to conform to data
models, and the retrieved business data is transformed by
integrating one or more business process models and the
business data, wherein the transformed business data includes
one or more identifiers that determine a contextual information;
Appeal 2020-004919
Application 14/621,382

3
determining the contextual information associated with
the transformed business data via matching the one or more
identifiers and one or more user attributes with the business
data, and the contextual information includes a theme for the
transformed business data;
sending the contextual information associated with the
transformed business data for displaying on a user interface of
the application;
receiving an input on one or more parameters including
the one or more identifiers associated with the contextual
information; and
based on the received inputs, customizing the contextual
information to be displayed on the user interface.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Wininger US 2009/0164490 A1 June 25, 2009
Koifman US 2009/0307249 A1 Dec. 10, 2009
Pillai US 2015/0256603 A1 Sept. 10, 2015

Claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–213 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Pillai, Koifman, and Wininger. Final Act. 5.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed June 17, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June
17, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 29, 2020) for
their respective details.

3 Appellant refers to claims “1–6, 8–13, and 15–20” standing rejected in the
Grounds of Rejection section of the Brief, but correctly refers to claims
“1–6, 8–13, and 15–21” at all other pertinent points of the Brief.
Appeal 2020-004919
Application 14/621,382

4
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Pillai, Koifman, and Wininger teach or
suggest transformed business data that includes one or more identifiers that
determine a contextual information?
2. Does the combination of Pillai, Koifman, and Wininger teach or
suggest contextual information that includes a theme for the transformed
business data?
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “wherein the
transformed business data includes one or more identifiers that determine a
contextual information,” and “determining the contextual information
associated with the transformed business data via matching the one or more
identifiers and one or more user attributes with the business data, and the
contextual information includes a theme for the transformed business data.”
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite analogous limitations.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Pillai teaches
that the transformed business data includes one or more identifiers. Appeal
Br. 9. Appellant contends, instead, that in Pillai “data that has already been
transformed is sent to a mobile device after application of a rule. . . . The
transformed data in Pillai does not include the rule, rather, the transformed
data and a rule are sent to the mobile device (suggesting they are separate)
and a rule is applied to the already transformed data.” Appeal Br. 11. In the
Reply Brief, Appellant argues that “while additional information may be
sent with the transformed data in Pillai, this does not mean the additional
information is incorporated with the transformed data such that it makes up
the transformed data.” Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2020-004919
Application 14/621,382

5
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Appellant discloses that
“identifiers may provide functionalities, such as determining the contextual
information, providing access control to business data and/or the contextual
information, business data localization, filtering and customization based on
user preferences, etc.” Spec. ¶ 28. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Pillai teaches providing “additional information along with the transformed
data to the one or more end users.” Such additional information can include
“data associated with various mobile device functionalities,” such as GPS,
“augmented reality, camera and maps to facilitate the one or more end users
in effective decision making.” Ans. 4, citing Pillai ¶ 67. Appellant’s Reply
Brief argument concerning “incorporation” of the additional information is
similarly unpersuasive. The claimed invention does not recite any such
“incorporation,” or recite further limitation(s) concerning in what particular
manner transformed business data includes identifiers that determine a
contextual information.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner erred in finding that
Wininger teaches “the contextual information includes a theme for the
transformed business data.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant proffers a definition of
“theme” as “the subject of . . . a piece of writing; a topic,” and argues that
the configuration rules in Wininger that describe a size of a font to be used
or contrast of display are simply formats for the display, and not a subject or
topic. Id.
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred regarding a “theme” is
not persuasive. The Examiner finds that Appellant’s Specification does not
provide a definition for “theme,” and cites the Merriam-Webster definition,
“a specific and distinctive quality, characteristic, or concern.” Ans. 5.
Appeal 2020-004919
Application 14/621,382

6
Appellant does disclose that “contextual information displayed on the user
interface or the dashboard may be personalized and customized (e.g., by
theming, styling content) based on user preferences.” Spec. ¶ 25. We agree
with the Examiner that this disclosure suggests that a theme in this context is
something that is displayed based on user preference. Ans. 5–6. We further
agree with the Examiner, then, that Wininger’s teaching that “a
configuration rule may include the size of font to be used; or various
accessibility parameters (increase contrast of display, etc.)” corresponds to a
specific and distinctive quality or characteristic that is displayed based on a
user preference, i.e., a theme.
We find as a result that the combination of Pillai, Koifman, and
Wininger teaches or suggests all the limitations of the invention under
appeal. We will sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–6,
8–13, and 15–21.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Pillai, Koifman, and Wininger teaches
transformed business data that includes one or more identifiers that
determine a contextual information.
2. The combination of Pillai, Koifman, and Wininger teaches
contextual information that includes a theme for the transformed business
data.
DECISION SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–21 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2020-004919
Application 14/621,382

7
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis 
Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–13,
15–21
103 Pillai, Koifman,
Wininger
1–6, 8–13,
15–21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED