Ex Parte Davis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

13776633 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131776,633 02/25/2013
47069 7590 09/16/2016
KONRAD RA YNES DAVDA & VICTOR, LLP
ATTN: IBM54
350 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE, SUITE 360
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Scott DAVIS
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.
SVL920070047US2 3151
EXAMINER
WHEATON, BRADFORD F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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):
krvuspto@ipmatters.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW SCOTT DA VIS,
DAVID ROBERT DRAEGER, HOWARD WSTIN GLASER,
JAMES ANDREW MCCRIGHT,
and RUSSELL BLAKE WRIGHT
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final rejection
of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a workflow program which determines if
modifications to a current node cause modifications to a subsequent node.
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An article of manufacture comprising a computer readable
storage device including code implementing a workflow
program and analyzer to cause operations to be performed by the
workflow program and the analyzer, the operations comprising:
processing, by the workflow program, user input at one
node in a workflow comprised of nodes and workflow paths
connecting the nodes, wherein the user provides user input to
traverse through at least one workflow path to reach a current
node, and wherein the current node comprises the node in the
workflow at which the user is currently working;
transmitting, by the workflow program, information on the
current node or a node following the current node to the analyzer
in response to processing at the current node in the workflow;
maintaining a workflow modification having workflow
modification instances providing changes to nodes in the
workflow;
processing, by the analyzer, the workflow modification to
determine whether there is at least one workflow modification
instance providing modifications in the workflow to at least one
subsequent node following the current node over at least one
workflow path from the current node; and
transmitting to the workflow program, by the analyzer, an
update including modifications from the determined at least one
workflow modification instance to the at least one subsequent
node in response to determining the modifications.
2
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lee
Nonaka
Matsui
Morales
Kakivaya
US 2003/0028550 Al
US 2004/0019512 Al
US 2005/0182749 Al
US 2006/0271927 Al
US 7,624,194 B2
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Feb. 6,2003
Jan.29,2004
Aug. 18, 2005
Nov. 30, 2006
Nov. 24, 2009
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morales, Matsui, and Nonaka (Non-
Final Act. 2-7).
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Morales, Matsui, Nonaka, and Kakivaya (id. at 7-
Q\
\J }·
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morales, Matsui, Nonaka, and Lee (id. at 9-10).
ISSUES
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Non-Final Office Action from which the appeal is taken
(Non-Final Act. 2-10) and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-10). We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
3
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 10, and 18
Issue 1 a: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Morales, Matsui, and Nonaka teaches or suggests "processing, by the
analyzer, workflow modification to determine whether there is at least one
workflow modification instance providing modifications in the workflow to
at least one subsequent node following the current node over at least one
workflow path from the current node" and "transmitting to the workflow
program, by the analyzer, an update including modifications from the
determined at least one workflow modification instance to the at least one
subsequent node in response to determining the modifications," as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 18?
Issue 1 b: Did the Examiner err in finding Nonaka teaches or suggests
"wherein the current node comprises the node in the workflow at which the
user is currently working," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claims 10 and 18?
ANALYSIS
Issue la
Appellants contend Morales does not teach "processing, by the
analyzer, the workflow modification to determine whether there is at least
one workflow modification instance providing modifications in the
workflow to at least one subsequent node following the current node over at
least one workflow path from the current node," and "transmitting to the
workflow program, by the analyzer, an update including modifications from
the determined at least one workflow modification instance to the at least
4
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
one subsequent node in response to determining the modifications," as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 18 (App. Br. 7-1 O;
Reply Br. 1-2). Specifically, Appellants argue Morales does not determine
modifications to subsequent nodes because Morales' master node
modifications from a save event "are propagated to slave nodes without
checking whether [the master node] modifications provide modification to a
subsequent node" (App. Br. 8, 10). Appellants additionally argue that
Morales' slave node is not "a subsequent node in the workflow" (Reply Br.
1 ). Appellants additionally argue "the claims are not propagating
modifications" of the master node to the slave node but instead, are sent to
the at least one subsequent node that follow the current mode (Reply Br. 2).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Morales
teaches a workflow including a master node and associated client/slave
nodes (Non-Final Act. 2-3 (citing Morales i-fi-128, 31-33); Ans. 2; see
Morales i-fi-121, 27). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Morales'
master node can be selected for modification and the master node
modifications are propagated to associated client/slave nodes (Ans. 2 (citing
Morales i-fi-132-33); Non-Final Act. 2-3).
We further are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Morales
does not "check[ ] whether a modification provides modification to a
subsequent node" (App. Br. 8). Morales determines which client/slave
nodes (i.e., subsequent nodes) should be modified based on whether an
associated master node is modified (Morales i-fi-121, 27, 32-33, Fig. 2).
Indeed, claim 1 of Morales teaches "determining at least one related node to
the selected node in response to a save event; and propagating the
modifications to the at least one related node."
5
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
Morales' client/slave nodes are not subsequent nodes to Morales' master
nodes (Reply Br. 1 ). We find Morales teaches changes are propagated from
master nodes to associated client/slave nodes in a process workflow
(Morales i-fi-121, 25, 32-33); propagating changes from master node to
client/slave node necessarily requires that the client/slave node is subsequent
to the master node in the master-slave hierarchy.
Additionally, Appellants' argument that the claims preclude
propagating modifications from the master node to the client/slave nodes
(Reply Br. 2) is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims
do not recite language precluding the claimed "current node" (i.e., the
master node) from being modified. Rather, the claims recite "modifications
in the workflow to at least one subsequent node," and we find Morales
modifies client/slave nodes subsequent to the master node (Morales i-fi-121,
25, 32-33).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the combination of Morales,
Matsui, and Nonaka does not teach or suggest "processing, by the analyzer,
the workflow modification to determine whether there is at least one
workflow modification instance providing modifications in the workflow to
at least one subsequent node following the current node over at least one
workflow path from the current node," and "transmitting to the workflow
program, by the analyzer, an update including modifications from the
determined at least one workflow modification instance to the at least one
subsequent node in response to determining the modifications," within the
meaning of claims 1, 10, and 18.
6
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
Issue lb
Appellants contend Morales does not teach "wherein the current node
comprises the node in the workflow at which the user is currently working,"
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 18 (App. Br. 10-
11 ). Specifically, Appellants argue "Morales discusses propagating
modifications that are saved at a master node, not determining modifications
for nodes following the node at which the user is working" (id.).
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner's finding that
Nonaka teaches a current node at which the user is working (Ans. 6 (citing
Nonaka i-fi-f 114--15); Non-Final Act. 4). Appellants' arguments directed to
Morales (App. Br. 10-11) do not address the Examiner's finding that
Nonaka teaches a current node at which a user is working (Ans. 6 (citing
Nonaka i-fi-1 114--15); Non-Final Act. 4). Because the Examiner relies on
Nonaka, rather than Morales, to teach the disputed limitation, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Morales and
Nonaka teaches or suggests "wherein the current node comprises the node in
the workflow at which the user is currently working," as recited in claim 1
and similarly recited in claims 10 and 18.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 2, 11, and 19
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Morales
and Matsui teaches or suggests "the update includes the modifications to at
least one of the subsequent node and the at least one workflow path
extending from the at least one subsequent node," as recited in claim 2 and
similarly recited in claims 11 and 19?
7
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend neither Matsui nor Nonaka teaches or suggests
"the update includes the modifications to at least one of the subsequent node
and the at least one workflow path extending from the at least one
subsequent node," as recited in claim 2 and similarly recited in claims 11
and 19 (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 5). Specifically, Appellants argue Matsui
"add[s] additions of activity and transitions to tables" and Nonaka "regist[ers
a] modification through a workflow definition managing program," but
neither reference teaches "an update sent from an analyzer program to a
workflow program has modifications to subsequent nodes and workflow
paths from the at least one subsequent node" (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 5).
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Morales teaches propagating modifications from a
master node to a client/slave node (Ans. 2 (citing Morales i-fi-1 32-33);
Morales i-fi-121, 25). We further agree with the Examiner's finding that
Matsui teaches modifications to workflow paths (Ans. 7 (citing Matsui
i-fi-1 91-97, 101)). The Examiner combines Morales and Matsui such that
workflow modifications "include node[ s] and path[ s] between nodes" (id.).
Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 5) improperly
attack Matsui and Nonaka individually and do not address the Examiner's
combination of Morales and Matsui. Because Matsui teaches a workflow
modification includes paths extending to the new nodes (Matsui i-fi-1 91-97,
101, Fig. 7), we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify Morales to determine
whether workflow paths should be modified (Ans. 7; see Non-Final Act. 6).
8
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
Furthermore, Appellants' arguments merely describe the operation of the
references and assert the references do not teach the claimed limitation,
without explaining why the references are inapplicable (see App. Br. 11-12;
see also Reply Br. 5). Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not sufficient
to persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Morales and Matsui teaches or suggests "the update includes the
modifications to at least one of the subsequent node and the at least one
workflow path extending from the at least one subsequent node," as recited
in claim 2 and similarly recited in claims 11 and 19.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 3, 12, and 20
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Morales
and Nonaka teaches or suggests "traversing to the at least one subsequent
node to process, wherein the modifications will have been applied to the at
least one subsequent node by a time the user traverses to the at least one
subsequent node," as recited in claim 3 and similarly recited in claims 12
and 20?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Nonaka does not teach or suggest "traversing to
the at least one subsequent node to process, wherein the modifications will
have been applied to the at least one subsequent node by a time the user
traverses to the at least one subsequent node," as recited in claim 3 and
similarly recited in claims 12 and 20 (App. Br. 12-13). Specifically,
Appellants argue "Nonaka discusses traversing to a next node from a current
node, but does not teach ... modifications are applied to the subsequent
9
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
node from a current node to be ready by the time the user then travers[ es] to
that subsequent node" (id. at 13).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As discussed supra,
we agree with the Examiner's finding that Morales teaches propagating
modifications from a master node to a client/slave node in a workflow (Ans.
2 (citing Morales i-fi-132-33); Morales i-fi-121, 25) and that Nonaka teaches
users work at nodes (Ans. 6 (citing Nonaka i-fi-f 114--15); Non-Final Act. 4).
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Nonaka teaches "determining if
all work on all nodes ... ha[s] been completed" (Ans. 8 (citing Nonaka
i-f 117)). We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to "only progress [to the next node]
once all the modification[ s] ... ha[ ve] been carried out from the determined
current to [the] next current node" (id.).
Appellants' arguments that Nonaka does not teach completing
modifications to a subsequent node before a user traverses to the subsequent
node (App. Br. 13), does not persuasively address the Examiner's rejection.
As the Examiner finds, Nonaka at least suggests that Morales' modifications
should be propagated through all the nodes in a workflow before allowing a
user to traverse to the next node in a modified workflow (see Ans. 8 (citing
Nonaka i-f 117)). Indeed, Nonaka is concerned with avoiding "error[s] at an
intermediate node" in a workflow due to untimely node access by
"complet[ing] work on consecutive nodes to be processed by one participant
at a time" (Nonaka i-fi-16-7). We also note Morales is directed to
"synchronizing process nodes in the event of changes and/or modifications"
(Morales i16 (emphasis added)), at least suggesting that node modifications
should be synchronized (i.e., completed) before nodes can be traversed.
10
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
Because both Nonaka and Morales teach, or at least suggest, that all
modifications to nodes should be propagated before allowing a user to
traverse through a workflow to modified nodes, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Morales and Nonaka
teaches or suggests "traversing to the at least one subsequent node to
process, wherein the modifications will have been applied to the at least one
subsequent node by a time the user traverses to the at least one subsequent
node," as recited in claim 3 and similarly recited in claims 12 and 20.
35U.S.C.§103(a): Claims 4, 13, and 21
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Morales,
Matsui, and Nonaka teaches or suggests "determining whether there are
modifications comprises determining whether there are modifications to at
least one workflow path extending from the at least one subsequent node,
wherein the transmitted update includes the determined modifications to the
at least one workflow path extending from the at least one subsequent node,"
as recited in claim 4 and similarly recited in claims 13 and 21?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend neither Matsui nor Nonaka teaches or suggests
"determining whether there are modifications comprises determining
whether there are modifications to at least one workflow path extending
from the at least one subsequent node, wherein the transmitted update
includes the determined modifications to the at least one workflow path
extending from the at least one subsequent node," as recited in claim 4 and
similarly recited in claims 13 and 21 (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 6).
11
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
Specifically, Appellants argue "Matsui discusses adding additions of activity
and transitions to tables" (App. Br. 13 (citing Matsui i-f 101); Reply Br. 6
(citing Matsui i-fi-191-97)) and Nonaka teaches "registration of a modification
through a workflow definition managing program" (App. Br. 13-14), but
neither reference teaches the claimed limitations.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As discussed supra,
we agree with the Examiner's finding that Morales teaches propagating
modifications from a master node to a client/slave node (Ans. 2 (citing
Morales i-fi-1 32-33); Morales i-fi-121, 25). We further agree with the
Examiner's finding that Matsui teaches modifications to workflow paths
(Ans. 8-9 (citing Matsui i-fi-191-97, 101)). The Examiner combines Morales
and Matsui to teach the modifications propagated in Morales include path
modifications (id.).
Appellants' arguments directed to Matsui or Nonaka alone (App. Br.
13-14; Reply Br. 6) do not address the Examiner's combination of Morales
and Matsui. Because Matsui teaches that a workflow modification includes
paths extending to the new nodes (Matsui i-fi-1 91-97, 101, Fig. 7), we agree
with the Examiner's conclusion that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
found it obvious to modify Morales to also determine if workflow paths are
modified (Ans. 8-9; see Non-Final Act. 6). Furthermore, Appellants'
arguments, which merely describe the operation of the references and assert
that the references do not teach the claimed limitation do not explain why
the references are inapplicable (see App. Br. 13-14; see also Reply Br. 6).
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not sufficient to persuade us that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Morales and Matsui teaches or
suggests "determining whether there are modifications comprises
12
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
determining whether there are modifications to at least one worktlow path
extending from the at least one subsequent node, wherein the transmitted
update includes the determined modifications to the at least one workflow
path extending from the at least one subsequent node," as recited in claim 4
and similarly recited in claims 13 and 21.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 5, 14, and 22
Issue 5: Did the Examiner err in finding Matsui teaches or suggests
"the transmitted update includes modifications comprising at least one of
modifications, additions or deletions to nodes and workflow paths in the
workflow following the at least one subsequent node for which the
modifications are determined," as recited in claim 5 and commensurately
recited in claims 14, and 22?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Matsui and Nonaka do not teach or suggest "the
transmitted update includes modifications comprising at least one of
modifications, additions or deletions to nodes and workflow paths in the
workflow following the at least one subsequent node for which the
modifications are determined," as recited in claim 5 and similarly recited in
claims 14 and 22 (App. Br. 14--15, 17). Specifically, Appellants argue
Matsui "[m]ention[s] that updates to activities and transitions are added to a
table" and Nonaka "register[s] modifications and recursively check[s] the
existence of a next node", but do not teach the claimed limitations (id.).
13
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Matsui
teaches adding activities and paths to a workflow (Ans. 9 (citing Matsui
iTiT 91-97, 101)).
Appellants' arguments, which merely describe the operation of the
references and assert that the references do not teach the claimed limitation
(see App. Br. 14--15), do not sufficiently explain why Matsui does not teach
or suggest adding activities and workflow paths. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Matsui teaches or suggests "the
transmitted update includes modifications comprising at least one of
modifications, additions or deletions to nodes and workflow paths in the
workflow following the at least one subsequent node for which the
modifications are determined," as recited in claim 5 and commensurately
recited in claims 14 and 22.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 9, 17, and 25
Issue 6: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Morales,
Matsui, and Nonaka teaches or suggests "an additional iteration of the
operations of processing the workflow modification, transmitting the update,
and applying the update ... with respect to the next current node and the
modified workflow," as recited in claim 9 and similarly recited in claims 17
and 25?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Nonaka does not teach or suggest "an additional
iteration of the operations of processing the workflow modification,
transmitting the update, and applying the update ... with respect to the next
14
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
current node and the modified workflow," as recited in claim 9 and similarly
recited in claims 17 and 25 (App. Br. 15-16). Specifically, Appellants argue
"Nonaka discusses how participant data is processed to determine a next
node in the workflow to set as the current node" and "traversing through
nodes," but does not teach or suggest "an additional iteration is performed
when traversing to a next current node in a modified workflow" (id. at 16).
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Morales modifies and updates nodes connected
through a workflow (Ans. 2 (citing Morales i-fi-1 32-33); Morales i-fi-121, 25).
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Nonaka teaches "set[ting] the
next node to the current node and continue processing and determining if
there is work left to be done," i.e., Nonaka iteratively and cyclically
processes nodes (Ans. 9 (citing Nonaka i-fi-f 116-17); see Nonaka Fig. 18).
We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have found it obvious to iteratively modify and update connected
nodes in Morales' workflow (see Ans. 9-10; see also Non-Final Act. 7).
Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 15-16) do not address the
Examiner's combination of Morales and Nonaka. Because Nonaka teaches
iterative node processing, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to iteratively modify
and update nodes connected in a workflow (see Ans. 9-10; see also Non-
Final Act. 7). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Morales and Nonaka teaches or suggests "an
additional iteration of the operations of processing the workflow
modification, transmitting the update, and applying the update ... with
15
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
respect to the next current node and the modified worktlow," as recited in
claim 9 and similarly recited in claims 17 and 25.
35 U.S. C. § 103 (a): Claims 6, 7, 15, and 23
Issue 7: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Morales,
Matsui, Nonaka, and Kakivaya teaches or suggests "the modifications are
for subsequent nodes and workflow paths within a fixed number of nodes
from the current node," as recited in claim 6 and similarly recited in claims
7, 15, and 23?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Matsui and Nonaka fail to teach "the transmitted
update includes modification comprising at least one of modifications,
additions or deletions to subsequent modes and workflow paths following
the current the current node in the workflow," as recited in claims 6, 10, and
16 for the reasons set forth with respect to claims 5, 14, and 22 (App. Br.
17). For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments.
Appellants also contend Kakivaya does not teach or suggest "the
modifications are for subsequent nodes and workflow paths within a fixed
number of nodes from the current node," as recited in claim 6 and similarly
recited in claims 7, 15, and 23 (App. Br. 16-17). Specifically, Appellants
argue "Kakivaya discuss indicating neighborhood nodes and a routing table
16
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
indicating neighborhood nodes and a set of neighbor nodes within a range,"
but does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that attack Kakivaya
individually when the Examiner's rejection is over Morales, Matsui,
Nonaka, and Kakivaya. As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that Morales teaches updating subsequent nodes (Ans. 2 (citing
Morales i-fi-1 32-33); Morales i-fi-121, 25). We further agree with the
Examiner's finding that Kakivaya teaches transmitting information a fixed
number of nodes away from the current node (Ans. 10 (citing Kakivaya
5:44--50, 12:38--43)). We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that
Morales and Kakivaya would have been combined to "specify a fix[ ed]
number of nodes away that the [node] update can be applied to" (Non-Final
8; Ans. 10).
Appellants' arguments, which merely describe the operation of the
Kakivaya and assert that Kakivaya does not teach the claimed limitation,
does not address the combination of Morales and Kakivaya (see App. Br.
17). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding the
combination of Morales, Matsui, Nonaka, and Kakivaya teaches or suggests
"the modifications are for subsequent nodes and workflow paths within a
fixed number of nodes from the current node," as recited in claim 6 and
similarly recited in claims 7, 15, and 23.
Remaining Claims 8, 16, 24, and 26
Dependent claims 8, 16, 24, and 26 are not separately argued by
Appellants and thus these claims fall with their respective independent
claims (see App. Br. 11, 18). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
17
Appeal2015-001992
Application 13/776,633
rejections of dependent claims 8, 16, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Morales, Matsui, and Nonaka or unpatentable over
Morales, Matsui, Nonaka, and Lee.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-26 are
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-22, 24, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morales, Matsui, and
Nonaka is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 7, 15, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morales, Matsui, Nonaka, and Kakivaya
is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Morales, Matsui, Nonaka, and Lee 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
18