11482481 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2014)

Ex Parte Bevan

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 10, 2014

11482481 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WAYNE BEVAN ____________ Appeal 2011-012346 Application 11/482,481 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012346 Application 11/482,481 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Wayne Bevan (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 17, 18, and 26-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 17, the sole pending independent claim, represents the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below. 17. A method for configuring and deploying a pre- defined queue network comprising the acts of: (a) using an object modeling tool executing from a non- transitory machine-readable medium on a first computing appliance, selecting a set of queues for the queue network from a larger set of pre-programmed queues and instantiating the queue network by creating flow paths between the queues, the queues comprising programmed processes for moving defined work objects sequentially from queue input to queue output, and the flow paths comprising software mechanisms for moving defined work objects from queue output of one queue to queue input of another; (b) deploying the queue network defined in step (a) to individual ones of a plurality of processing nodes, each processing node comprising a processing unit and coupled data storage, the processor nodes connected to the first computing appliance by a digital network. Appeal 2011-012346 Application 11/482,481 3 REJECTION Claims 17, 18 and 26-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aigner (US 2007/0033088 A1; pub. Feb. 8, 2007), Notani (US 6,442,528 B1; iss. Aug. 27, 2002), and MacKinnon (US 2006/0282474 A1; pub. Dec. 14, 2006).1 Ans. 3. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Aigner teaches all of the limitations of independent claim 17, including selecting a set of queues for the queue network from a larger set of pre-programmed queues and instantiating the queue network by creating flow paths between the queues ([¶¶] 0036-0037; Guided procedure templates, which are pre- programmed, may be employed to create a new workflow in a process modeling tool. The templates include pre-configured work procedures that reflect best practices of achieving a work objective. An example of reusing a template is given in [¶] 0098). Ans. 3-4. The Examiner finds that Aigner does not disclose deploying the queue network to individual ones of a plurality of processing nodes comprising a processing unit and coupled data storage, and connected to a first computing appliance by a digital network, and does not “explicitly specify” that the queues comprise programmed processes for moving defined work objects sequentially from queue input to queue output, and that the flow paths comprise software mechanisms for moving defined work objects from an 1 Appellant argues claims 17, 18, and 26-31 as a group. App. Br. 7. We select claim 17 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appeal 2011-012346 Application 11/482,481 4 output of one queue to an input of another queue. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds, however, that Notani teaches designing an inter-enterprise workflow comprising various activities 70-77, the outputs from the activities being fed as input via flow paths to other activities. Id. (citing Notani, col. 13, ll. 21- 39; and Fig. 10). The Examiner also finds that MacKinnon discloses the concept of flows that are the result of a decomposition of a complex or monolithic data processing problem, with the flows being distributable across a network cluster of commodity computers. Id. at 4-5 (citing MacKinnon, para. [0036]). The Examiner concludes that, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Aigner’s method by integrating Notani’s design of inter-enterprise workflows to facilitate enterprise-to-enterprise collaboration “to facilitate enterprise-to-enterprise (E2E) collaboration” (Ans. 4), and to integrate MacKinnon’s concept of the distribution of flows, to facilitate scaling and enable fault-tolerant computing “to facilitate scaling and enable fault- tolerant computing” (Id. at 5). The Examiner finds that paragraphs [0036] and [0037] of Aigner teach the creation of new business and ad hoc collaborative workflows. Guided procedure templates m[a]y include pre- configured work procedures that reflect best practices of achieving a work objective that is part of a larger cross- functional application scenario. Such work procedures may include contributions from several people, creation of multiple work deliverables, and milestones/phases. Ans. 9. Appeal 2011-012346 Application 11/482,481 5 The Examiner further finds that paragraph [0098] of Aigner discloses re-using a pre-programmed guided procedure templates including pre- configured work procedures that reflect best practices of achieving a work objective. Id. at 3-4. We are not persuaded that Aigner teaches “selecting a set of queues for the queue network from a larger set of pre-programmed queues” as recited in claim 17. Aigner’s paragraph [0036] teaches linking objects and workflow together, and using an object modeling tool to build the components of applications to implement new enterprise management functions. Aigner’s paragraph [0037] teaches a process modeling tool including guided procedure templates with pre-configured work procedures reflecting best practices of achieving a work objective that is part of a larger cross-functional application scenario. Aigner’s paragraph [0098] teaches that a template can describe a specific workflow, with a pattern having certain functions to be undertaken. Nowhere does the Examiner explain how Aigner’s creation of a new business and ad hoc collaborative workflow teaches the claimed “selecting a set of queues for the queue network from a larger set of pre-programmed queues.” The Examiner therefore has not established prima facie obviousness of claim 17 and we do not sustain the rejection of claims 17, 18, and 26-31. Appeal 2011-012346 Application 11/482,481 6 DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 17, 18, and 26-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aigner, Notani, and MacKinnon. REVERSED hh