Schmeink, Anke et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2020

13132945 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 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.
13/132,945 10/06/2011 Anke Schmeink 2008P01422WOUS 9216
24737 7590 08/21/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
CHOI, YUK TING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANKE SCHMEINK, SANDRA GEISLER,
ANDREAS BRAUERS, and CHRISTOPH JOSEF QUIX
____________________

Appeal 2019-003358
Application 13/132,9451
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–9 and 21–28. Appellant has cancelled or withdrawn claims 10–20
and 29–31. Appeal Br. 7–10. We have jurisdiction over the remaining
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 This application was subject to an earlier appeal (Appeal No. 2016-000428,
decided January 23, 2018) in which we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of
the then-pending claims.
2 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies
Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003358
Application 13/132,945

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
“linking data of a data source to a target database.” Spec. 1:2–3. In a
disclosed embodiment, the linking of data is accomplished using an
ontology-based mapping between selected concepts and properties of a
reference ontology and various data source ontologies. Spec. 3:17–19.
According to the Specification, a target database may be defined “by a
selected first set of concepts and properties of [a] reference ontology.”
Spec. 5:13–14.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method comprising:
accessing a target database comprising at least one table
associated with a first concept or property of a reference
ontology, wherein the target database is defined by a user
selected first set of concepts and properties of the reference
ontology;
defining a data source ontology for a data source
comprising a dataset, said data source ontology comprising a
second concept or property; and
creating a link between said second concept or property of
the data source ontology and said first concept or property of the
reference ontology, said link defining to which table of said
target database data of said dataset, associated with said second
concept or property of the data source ontology, is related.

Appeal 2019-003358
Application 13/132,945

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1–5, 8, and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Fox et al. (US 2005/0149484 A1; July 7,
2005) (“Fox”). Final Act. 5–9.
2. Claims 6, 7, and 21–28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fox and Dheap et al. (US 2007/0226246
A1; Sept. 27, 2007) (“Dheap”). Final Act. 9–16.

ANALYSIS3
Rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Appellant argues that Fox fails to disclose a target database is defined
by a user selected first set of concepts and properties of the reference
ontology, as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 2–5; Reply Br. 2–3.
In particular, Appellant argues Fox describes a data transformation process
wherein a source and target database are imported into the disclosed
software application and an ontology model is built to facilitate the data
transformation. Appeal Br. 2–5; Reply Br. 2–3. Moreover, Appellant
asserts that Fox discloses it is the ontology model—not the target
database—that is modified by the user. Appeal Br. 2–5 (citing Fox ¶¶ 179,
181, 451, 453, Figs. 9A–9E); Reply Br. 2–3.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.

3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
December 18, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed March 25, 2019
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 28, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and the Final Office Action, mailed July 30, 2018 (“Final Act.”), from which
this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2019-003358
Application 13/132,945

4
Fox generally relates to “deriving transformations for transforming
data from one schema to another.” Fox ¶ 2. In describing the invention, Fox
describes that given a source database and a target database, a
transformation of source to target databases is accomplished by mapping the
source and target databases into an ontology model. Fox ¶¶ 53–54. In
addition, Fox discloses that the “ontology model is built by adding classes
and properties to an initial ontology model,” which may be manually added
by a user. Fox ¶ 451. Thus, rather than disclosing a target database defined
by a user selecting a first set of concepts and properties of a reference
ontology, we understand the sections of Fox relied by the Examiner to
disclose a user selecting concepts and properties of a target database to build
the ontology model to facilitate the data transformation.
For the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 2–5, 8,
and 9, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom.

Rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner does not rely on Dheap to cure the deficiencies of Fox,
discussed above. Accordingly, for similar reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 6, 7, and
21–28.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 8, and 9
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appeal 2019-003358
Application 13/132,945

5
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 7, and 21–28
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8, 9 102(b) Fox 1–5, 8, 9
6, 7, 21–28 103(a) Fox, Dheap 6, 7, 21–28
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 21–28

REVERSED