Ex Parte Cowan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2014

11297676 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT D. COWAN, KIM D. LETKEMAN, and
MOHAMMED M. MOSTAFA
___________

Appeal 2011-006586
Application 11/297,676
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, TRENTON A. WARD, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006586
Application 11/297,676

2
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to artifact version control and merging
artifacts in a version control system using a method of generating changes
(i.e., deltas) for a contributor artifact of an ancestor artifact (Spec. ¶ 0031),
identifying interrelated deltas (Spec. ¶ 0032), and grouping interrelated
deltas into a composited set of deltas (id.). See also Spec. ¶ 0021. The delta
can range from a format change such as a font change, to an architectural
change such as the deletion of an object from a model. Id. According to
Appellants’ invention, the deltas produced between different versions of an
artifact can be analyzed and grouped together. Spec. ¶ 0019.

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the recited invention, and is
reproduced below:
1. A method for compositing deltas for artifacts, the method comprising:

generating a plurality of deltas for a contributor artifact of an ancestor
artifact;

identifying interrelated ones of the deltas; and,

1 Appellants represent that the Real Party-in-Interest is International
Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-006586
Application 11/297,676

3
grouping the interrelated ones of the deltas into a composited set of
deltas.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ahmed (Khawar Z. Ahmed, USING IBM RATIONAL XDE AND
IBM RATIONAL CLEARCASE TOGETHER, International Business Machines
Corporation (2/28/2003)). Ans. 3-7.

ANALYSIS
Appellants first contend that the claim term “deltas” should be
construed as “changes.” App. Br. 6. Appellants then assert that Examiner
misconstrues “deltas” as “artifacts.” Id. at 5-6. Appellants conclude that
such misconstruction is reversible error. Id. at 6. However, the Examiner
agrees with Appellants’ claim construction, finding that the term “deltas”
means “changes and differences.” Ans. 7. Then in the Reply Brief,
Appellants expand their proposed construction of “deltas” to mean the
“differences of changes to the same artifact.” Reply Br. 2-3. According to
Appellants, the claimed “deltas” must be “for a contributor artifact of an
ancestor artifact.” Id. at 3.
Based on the proposed claim construction in the Reply Brief, Appellants
contend the Examiner improperly associates the plain claim language of
independent claim 1 to the teachings of Ahmed, because the Examiner admits
that the deltas of Ahmed are for “submitted changes” for a single artifact –
namely the “same artifact” to which different parties submit changes. Reply
Br. 3 (citing Ans. at 7). Appellants then contend, in the alternative, that the
Examiner asserts that the deltas of Ahmed are for changes in artifacts
generically. Id. Appellants conclude that in either case, Examiner has failed to
Appeal 2011-006586
Application 11/297,676

4
find that Ahmed describes the claimed “deltas for a contributor artifact of an
ancestor artifact.” Id.
Upon reviewing the specification, we agree with Appellants’ claim
construction from the Appeal Brief and with the Examiner’s finding that the
claim term “deltas” should be construed to mean “changes and differences.”
See Spec. ¶¶ 0005, 0021. Appellants’ construction that “deltas” means the
“differences of changes to the same artifact” (Reply Br. 2) is not supported by
the broad scope of the claims as currently written.
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Ahmed discloses the
claim element of “deltas for a contributor artifact of an ancestor artifact.”
Appellants’ Specification teaches that a contributor is an artifact version and
the delta is the difference between the artifact version (contributor) and an
ancestor artifact of the contributor (a prior version). Spec. ¶ 0021. As noted
by the Examiner, Ahmed discloses that “[w]hen different parties make
changes to the same artifact and the changes are submitted, Rational XDE
launches a ClearCase merge session to graphically show the differences
between the submissions.” (Ans. 7-8, citing to Ahmed at 14.) Furthermore,
according to the Examiner, Figure 8 of Ahmed illustrates a merge session
where a user is provided the opportunity to resolve and merge changes as
desired. Ans. 8. Therefore, Ahmed meets the claim limitation because, even
if different parties make changes to the same artifact, both the original
version (ancestor) and a changed version (artifact version) exists and a user
can tell the difference (the change or delta) between the versions as shown in
the merge session (illustrated in Figure 8 of Ahmed).
Appellants also contend that the Examiner misconstrues the claim
term “interrelated ones of the deltas” as “artifacts that relate to one another”
Appeal 2011-006586
Application 11/297,676

5
and “all deltas for an artifact.” App. Br. 6-7. However, the Examiner finds
that the comparative model explorer and comparative property browser
panes identify changes (i.e., deltas) in artifacts that relate to one another (i.e.,
are interrelated) via a comparison process (to sort changes that relate to one
another) to form a composited set of deltas. Ans. 8.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and is not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that Ahmed does not disclose the disputed limitation
“interrelated ones of the deltas,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Appellants finally contend that the Examiner misconstrues
“composited set of deltas” as “graphical view.” App. Br. 6-7. Appellants
conclude that the Examiner’s misconstruction of key claim terms means the
Examiner has not found all the claimed elements of claim 1 within a single
prior art reference (i.e., Ahmed). Id. Contrary to the Appellants’ arguments,
the Examiner finds that Figure 2 in the Appellants’ Specification, which is a
screen shot illustrating a composited set of deltas with a composite 250 and
branches 240, to be similar to Figure 8 of Ahmed, which also shows a
composited set of deltas with composites and subsequent leaves in a
comparative model explorer pane. Ans. 8. According to the Examiner, the
interface of Ahmed’s Figure 8 identifies conflicts and changes amongst
artifacts, groups those changes together, and allows a user to resolve those
conflicts. Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that Ahmed does not disclose the disputed limitation
“composited set of deltas” as recited in independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2-8 depend, directly or indirectly, from recited
Appeal 2011-006586
Application 11/297,676

6
independent claim 1 and were not argued separately. Therefore, the Board
also sustains the rejection of claims 2-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj