Ex Parte Bhandarkar et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201611014149 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111014,149 12/15/2004 102549 7590 05/31/2016 Salesforce.com/Haynes Beffel & Wolfeld LLP C/O Nicole Gorney The Landmark @ One Market Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mangesh P. Bhandarkar 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 214US 4632 EXAMINER LE,HUNGD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2161 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2016 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 docket@hmbay.com pair_hbw@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MANGESH P. BHANDARKAR and MICHAEL K. DEWEY Appeal2014-005457 Application 11/014, 149 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION According to Appellants, the claims are directed to methods and apparatus for defining and modifying business processes (Spec i-f 2; Appeal2014-005457 Application 11/014, 149 Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for providing a customized representation of a business process involving a plurality of organizational entities that are accessible through a network compnsmg: providing a user interface operable to display a customized representation of a business process having a configurable flow, the business pr[]ocess comprising a series of operations of business activity to be performed by one or more of the organizational entities; storing user information, including user privileges associated with the business process, in a central repository that is accessible through the network; receiving a request from a first user through the user interface to view the business process; retrieving the user privileges for the first user from the central repository; and providing a customized representation of code corresponding to the business process for presentation in the user interface, the customized representation comprising a graphical representation of the series of operations of business activity to be performed by one or more of the organizational entities. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kim Homsi US 2002/0065701 Al US 7,065,493 Bl 2 May 30, 2002 June 20, 2006 Appeal2014-005457 Application 11/014, 149 REJECTIONS Claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Homsi (Final Act. 3-17). Claims 8, 20, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Homsi and Kim (Final Act. 17-19). We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). ISSUE 1 At the outset, we note Appellants have devoted a considerable majority of the 112 pages of the Appeal Brief to air grievances about the prosecution and the Examiner's actions or lack thereof. We direct Appellants to 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.181, describing petitions to the Director from any action of an Examiner in the ex parte prosecution of an application and 35 U.S.C. § 134 specifying the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's jurisdiction. We further direct Appellants to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 and specifically, section ( c )(iv) which specifies the content of an appeal brief. ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 102(e): Claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-39 Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Homsi (App. Br. 19-88). The issues presented by the arguments are: 3 Appeal2014-005457 Application 11/014, 149 Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Homsi discloses: "display a customized representation of a business process having a configurable flow," "the business process comprising a series of operations of business activity to be performed by one or more of the organizational entities," "storing user information, including user privileges associated with the business process" and "retrieving the user privileges for the first user," and "providing a customized representation of code corresponding to the business process for presentation in the user interface, the customized representation comprising a graphical representation of the series of operations of business activity to be performed by one or more of the organizational entities," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue Homsi does not disclose "a customized representation of a business process" (App. Br. 66----67). Appellants point to one description in their Specification, of a business process (Spec. i-f 3 4 Appeal2014-005457 Application 11/014, 149 (emphasis added): "[a] business process can be described as a series of specific events in a chain of structured business activities performed by one or more organizational entities"); however, the Specification further describes that "[b ]usiness processes can be defined in numerous ways" (id. i-f 62). Indeed, Appellants specifically state a business process is often commonly referred to as a "workflow" (id. i-f 62). Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner's interpretation of "business process" is in error. Homsi states "[w]orkflow is generally defined as a series of tasks within an organization to produce a final outcome" and "automation of a business process, in whole or in part, during which documents, information, or tasks are passed from one participant to another for action, according to a set of procedural rules" (Homsi 1 :23-29). We determine a series of tasks is a series of specific events and Homsi' s series of tasks or automation of a business process is specific events in a chain of structured business activities. Moreover, as Homsi describes a workflow system that allows businesses to build and maintain workflow solutions to support electronic business applications, as well as business-to-business relationships, we are not persuaded Homsi fails to disclose the recited business process. Thus, we determine Homsi' s workflow describes a business process. Appellants argue Homsi does not disclose a customized representation of a business process as the portions cited by the Examiner address users editing the workflow, not a representation of the workflow (App. Br. 66---68). This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Homsi discloses providing workflow objects that are customizable (Ans. 22; Homsi 6:20-21, 49-56, 64---67, 7:1-10). Moreover, Homsi describes that the 5 Appeal2014-005457 Application 11/014, 149 invention is directed to a workflow management system integrated with an "easy simple-to-use graphical user interface for creating workflow processes" and use of a visual designer to create workflows using customizable workflow objects and collaboration models (Homsi 2:4--7; 6:4--9, 49-56). Indeed, we are not persuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan upon reading Homsi' s specification would lack the skill or knowledge to recognize a workflow displayed or created using models is not the actual workflow, but instead is a representation of the workflow. Appellants further argue "the presentation [in Homsi] would at most display the very SAME generic workflow to all workflow-creating users" (App. Br. 68). Appellants are arguing limitations not recited in the claim. The claim does not recite providing a customized representation to each user. Nonetheless, Homsi describes a system that is fully customizable so any user could customize it to display a customized representation (Ans. 22 (citing Homsi 6:20-21, 49-52, 64--67, 7:1-10). Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us Homsi fails to disclose "a customized representation of a business process," as recited in claim 1. Appellants next argue Homsi does not disclose the business process comprises a series of operations of business activity to be performed by one or more of the organizational entities, because only documents are routed and the business workflow spans multiple business entities (App. Br. 71- 73). According to Appellants, a business entity is a foreign entity, a customer, competitor, or supplier and there would be no reason and it would make no sense to share the workflow (id. at 71 ). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. 6 Appeal2014-005457 Application 11/014, 149 Appellants are narrowly interpreting "organizational entities." Appellants' own Specification does not limit this term, instead broadly describing that an organizational entity may include two or more individual users (Spec. i-f 3). Moreover, Homsi describes that its system "also allows workflow services to be rendered to external organizations"; thus, workflow services may be shared between organizational entities (whether internal or external) (Ans. 22; Homsi, 2:40-43; Homsi 2:9-12. See also Homsi, Background of the Invention (describing an existing workflow management system that helps organizations manage their business processes)). Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us Homsi fails to disclose "the business process comprising a series of operations of business activity to be performed by one or more of the organizational entities," as recited in claim 1. Appellants further argue Hosmi does not disclose "a customized representation of a business process having a configurable flow," arguing Homsi is directed to documents (App. Br. 77-79). We are not persuaded. Homsi' s workflow (which is customized, as discussed supra) has a configurable flow, i.e., Homsi's workflow process has a workcycle (a structured collaboration model that describes how different components should interact to complete a business process) that may be edited by a user (Ans. 23; Homsi 6:63---65, 8:22-30). Thus, Appellants' argument that Homsi' s workflow cannot be both the customized business process and the configurable flow is not persuasive (App. Br. 79). Indeed, the workflow may be customized in terms of events and the flow may be configured (Homsi 6: 1---65). As such, we find Homsi discloses the visual designer (a user interface) displays a customized representation of a business process 7 Appeal2014-005457 Application 11/014, 149 having a configurable flow and therefore, discloses "providing a user interface operable to display a customized representation of a business process having a configurable flow, the business process comprising a series of operations of business activity to be performed by one or more of the organizational entities," as recited in claim 1. Appellants next argue Homsi does not disclose "storing user information, including user privileges associated with the business process, in a central repository that is accessible through the network" (App. Br. 81 ). According to Appellants, Homsi' s routing rules provide for workflow- creating users to predefine target recipients according to simple roles, but does not disclose privileges in conjunction with "workflow events" (id.). We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds Homsi describes the Flowbuilder Administration database is a centralized store for all workflow rules (Ans. 22-23; Homsi 6:2-21, 15:65---67, 16:29-36). Homsi further describes the design process allows for custom routing types and notification messages such that the routing options allow users to control options a requester or recipient will have, i.e., user privileges (Homsi 6:20-21, 10:1- 56; see also Figs. 7a and 8 illustrating the routing options for "Dept. Manager"). Thus, as set forth by the Examiner, each user may have a different role with more or fewer privileges or access to a particular file (Ans. 22). Accordingly, we find Homsi discloses when a user requests to view the business process, the workflow rules, stored in the central repository, retrieve the user privileges to determine the access level. Accordingly, we find Homsi discloses "storing user information, including user privileges associated with the business process, in a central repository that is accessible through the network," as recited in claim 1. 8 Appeal2014-005457 Application 11/014, 149 Appellants next argue Homsi does not disclose "providing a customized representation of code corresponding to the business process for presentation in the user interface, the customized representation comprising a graphical representation of the series of operations of business activity to be performed by one or more of the organizational entities" (App. Br. 82- 83). Initially, we note "a customized representation of code" is not defined explicitly in Appellants' Specification. The Examiner sets forth an interpretation for "customized representation of code" (Ans. 23). Appellants have not argued this interpretation. We determine the Examiner's interpretation is broad, but reasonable in light of the Specification. Considering this interpretation (a modifiable code that allows users to make changes to it), we find Homsi discloses the disputed limitation. Specifically, as set forth by the Examiner, Homsi allows a user to drag and drop objects to create a workflow (id.; Homsi 4:12-19, 6:7-14, 65----67, 7:1-10, Figs. 6b, 7a, 7b, 18a, and 18c ). Homsi thus describes users may edit the workflow to customize the workflow events (id.). We agree with the Examiner that doing so would modify the underlying code of the workflow; therefore, presenting a customized representation of code corresponding to the workflow in the user interface. Additionally, Homsi discloses a user is presented a portion of a business process for which they have user privileges (id.). Appellants' arguments regarding user privileges and this limitation (App. Br. 83-85) are not persuasive with respect to claims 1, 13, and 25, as these claims do not recite the customized representation of code with any association to user privileges or the first user. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding independent claim 1. Independent claim 13 is argued for "similar reasons as 9 Appeal2014-005457 Application 11/014, 149 with instant claim 1" with no additional arguments presented (App. Br. 88). Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13. With respect to independent claim 25, Appellants' arguments appear directed to a previous version of claim 25. Specifically, Appellants argue Homsi does not disclose the recited "customized representation" and "policy data" (App. Br. 88-89). As set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that Homsi fails to disclose "customized representation" as recited. The argued "policy data" is not recited. Appellants argue claims 2-7 and 9-12 based on their dependence from claims 1, 13, and 25 (App. Br. 89). Therefore, claims 2-7 and 9-12 fall with their respective independent claims. Appellants further argue independent claims 37-39 are not anticipated by Homsi based on the arguments set forth for claim 1 (App. Br. 90-95). We are not persuaded for the reasons set forth above. Further as to Appellants' additional argument that Homsi does not disclose "providing a customized representation of code ... the customized representation being in compliance with the retrieved user privileges for the first user," we are not persuaded. Initially we note the recitation of "the customized representation comprising a graphical representation" lacks clear antecedent basis. In the interest of compact prosecution, we nonetheless address Appellants' arguments. Specifically, Homsi discloses the workflow (business process) may be customized to have specific user privileges for users (Final Act. 14-- 17; Homsi 6:7-14, 65----67, 7:1-10, Figs. 6b, 7a, 7b, 18a, 18c). Thus, as shown in Homsi, "a customized representation of code corresponding to the business process for presentation in the user interface, ... , the customized 10 Appeal2014-005457 Application 11/014, 149 representation being in compliance with the retrieved user privileges for the first user" is provided. More specifically, we agree with the Examiner Homsi discloses the customized representation of code corresponding to the business process (workflow) is illustrated as being in compliance with the retrieved user privileges for the first user, as shown in the Figures. In addition, however, Appellants argue Homsi does not disclose "modifying the code corresponding to the business process when the user moves the first graphical object from a first location in the graphical representation to a second location in the graphical representation and when movement of the first graphical object complies with the retrieved user privileges" (App. Br. 93). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown Homsi discloses the disputed feature and especially that the movement complies with the retrieved user privileges. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection. However, we do not make any determination on whether this feature would have been obvious over the cited prior art. In conclusion, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Homsi discloses the invention as recited in claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-36; however, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner has not shown Homsi discloses the invention as recited in claims 37-39. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Homsi and are constrained to reverse the rejection of claims 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Homsi. 11 Appeal2014-005457 Application 11/014, 149 ISSUE 3 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 8, 20, and 32 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Homsi and Kim (App. Br. 96). According to Appellants, dependent claims 8, 20, and 32 are patentable based on their dependence on independent claims 1, 13, and 25, respectively. For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Homsi and Kim teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claim 8, 20, and 32 and claims 8, 20, and 32, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 8, 20, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Homsi and Kim. DECISION1 The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Homsi is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Homsi is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 20, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Homsi and Kim is affirmed. AFFIRMED-IN-PART 1 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner's attention is directed to claims 37-39 which recite "the customized representation comprising a graphical representation of the series of operations." We again note it is unclear whether "the customized representation" refers to the recited "a customized representation of a business process" or "a customized representation of code." 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation