Ex Parte Dumitrescu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

13036147 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/036,147 02/28/2011
50447 7590 04/28/2016
DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP
1526 SPRUCE STREET
SUITE 302
BOULDER, CO 80302
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tiberiu Dumitrescu
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.
4-03 l_FN201l01561 4362
EXAMINER
BARNES, TED W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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):
docketing@dbflaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIBERIU DUMITRESCU, MICHAEL RAINES,
and DANIEL HUFNAGEL
Appeal2014-008034
Application 13/036,147
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1
1 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider
whether the claims comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355-56 (2014); CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F. 3d 1366, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding
claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are unpatentable
mental processes (i.e., abstract ideas)). Although the Board is authorized to
reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn
when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
Appeal2014-008034
Application 13/036,147
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to print job management. See generally
Spec. i-f 1. Claim 15 is exemplary:
15. A system comprising:
a resource manager that identifies a first workflow
comprising a first ordered set of print shop activities for a print
job, directs resources of a print shop to perform the activities of
the first workflow, detects a triggering event indicating a
changed condition for the print shop, and halts processing of the
first workflow responsive to detecting the triggering event;
a memory that stores rules that describe logical
relationships of activities at the print shop; and
a workflow generator that accesses the memory to
identify rules defined for the print job, identifies activities
available at the print shop, and generates a second workflow for
the print job based on the changed condition indicated by the
triggering event, the rules defined for the print job, the available
activities, and a job ticket of the print job, wherein the second
workflow comprises a second ordered set of print shop
activities,
wherein the resource manager further directs the
resources of the print shop to perform the activities of the
second workflow.
References and Rejections
Duke et al. US 6,573,910 Bl
Goel et al. US 2005/0248804 Al
Conescu et al. US 2009/0281862 Al
Dumitrescu et al. US 2012/0218590 Al
June 3, 2003
Nov. 10, 2005
Nov. 12, 2009
Aug. 30, 2012
Claims 1--4, 7-11, and 14--18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Conescu and Goel.
2
Appeal2014-008034
Application 13/036,147
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Conescu, Goel, and Duke.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection
We disagree with Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6-11 ), and agree
with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions on pages 13-16 of
the Answer as our own. Therefore, we limit our discussion to the following
points for emphasis.
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 15.
First, Appellants contend Conescu and Goel do not collectively teach
"a workflow generator that ... generates a second workflow for the print job
based on the changed condition indicated by the triggering event, the rules
defined for the print job, the available activities, and a job ticket of the print
job," as recited in claim 15. See 1A .. pp. Br. 6-10. In particular, Appellants
contend Conescu's paragraphs 34, 37, 41, and 43 merely "discuss generating
job tickets for print job" and the claimed workflow "is substantially different
from the scheduling system of Conescu ... at i-f [0041]." App. Br. 8-9.
Appellants assert Conescu' s paragraph 62 teaches "workflows ... are
generated based on only two criteria: the available activities and the input of
a user" and paragraph 12 does not teach "rules defined for a print job." App.
Br. 7. Appellants argue the cited prior art fails to teach the general concept
of automated workflow required by the claim. See App. Br. 8, 11. Further,
Appellants assert it would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art to
"modify their systems to generate workflows as done by the system of claim
3
Appeal2014-008034
Application 13/036,147
15, at least because Goel does not mention rules and because in Conescu, the
rules are used to generate a job ticket." App. Br. 8.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner provides findings showing Conescu and Goel
collectively teach the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 13-16. For
example, the Examiner explains the claimed workflow generator is
reasonably mapped to Conescu'sjob controller 306, and Conescu teaches
generating workflow based on things such as changed conditions and a job
ticket. See Ans. 13-14. Further, the Examiner cites Conescu's paragraph
34---not paragraph 12-for teaching the rules defined for the customer, and
Conescu's paragraph 54 for teaching available activities. See Ans. 15. The
Examiner further explains that the claim does not require an "automatic"
workflow generator, as contended by Appellants. Appellants fail to
adequately respond to such findings and therefore, fail to show specific fault
in the Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
[patentable] distinctions over the prior art.").
Further, contrary to Appellants' argument, Conescu's paragraph 62
discusses an example not cited by the Examiner, and does not state
"workflows ... are generated based on only two criteria: the available
activities and the input of a user" (App. Br. 7), as contended by Appellants.
See Conescu i-f 62. Similarly, Conescu's paragraphs 34, 37, 41, and 43 do
not merely "discuss generating job tickets for print job" (App. Br. 8), as
argued by Appellants. See Conescu i-fi-134, 37, 41, 43. In addition,
Appellants' argument about an automatic work flow generator is not
4
Appeal2014-008034
Application 13/036,147
commensurate with the scope of claim 15. And Appellants' assertion that it
would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art to "modify their
systems to generate workflows as done by the system of claim 15, at least
because Goel does not mention rules and because in Conescu, the rules are
used to generate a job ticket" (App. Br. 8) is speculative and conclusory.
Appellants fail to adequately show why their unsupported characterization of
the prior art would have made the proposed combination nonobvious.
Second, Appellants contend Conescu and Goel do not collectively
teach "a workflow generator that accesses the memory to identify rules
defined for the print job," as recited in claim 15. See App. Br. 10. In
particular, Appellants contend Conescu's paragraph 54 describe job tickets,
which are not the claimed rules. App. Br. 8.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner explains
that Conescu's paragraph 34---not paragraph 54---is cited for teaching rules.
See Ans. 15. Appellants fail to adequately respond to such findings and
therefore, fail to show specific fault in the Examiner's findings. See Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388 at 391.
Third, Appellants contend Conescu and Goel do not collectively teach
"a resource manager that ... detects a triggering event indicating a changed
condition for the print shop, and halts processing of the first workflow
responsive to detecting the triggering event," as recited in claim 15. See
App. Br. 10-11. In particular, Appellants contend Consescu and Goel teach
non-automated systems, and operator input is not a triggering event
indicating a changed condition for the print shop. See App. Br. 11.
As discussed above, Appellants' argument is not commensurate with
the scope of claim 15, because the claim does not recite an "automatic"
5
Appeal2014-008034
Application 13/036,147
system. Appellants' attorney argument that operator input "is not a
triggering event indicative of a changed condition at the print shop" (App.
Br. 11) is unpersuasive, as Appellants fail to show why such unreasonably
narrow claim interpretation is required. Further, the Examiner cites Goel' s
paragraphs 34, which Appellants fail to analyze. See Ans. 5, 15-16. In
addition, the Examiner explains why Conescu and Goel collectively teach
the disputed claim limitation (Ans. 15-16), and Appellants fail to squarely
respond to the Examiner's findings. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
388 at 391.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15, and
corresponding dependent claims Appellants do not separately argue.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 8, Appellants contend Conescu
and Goel do not teach the claimed "rules defined for the customer." See
App. Br 12. In particular, Appellants generally assert Conescu does not
teach the disputed claim limitation, and contend Conescu' s paragraph 102
discusses dependencies that are global. See App. Br 12. Appellants also
advance the same arguments discussed above with respect to claim 15. See
App. Br 12.
The Examiner cites Conescu's paragraphs 53 and 101-104---not
paragraph 102-for teaching the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 8, 16-
17. Appellants do not critique the Conescu paragraphs cited by the
Examiner and therefore, fail to show specific fault in the Examiner's
findings. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388 at 391.
6
Appeal2014-008034
Application 13/036,147
Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 15, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 8,
and corresponding dependent claims Appellants do not separately argue.
Separately Argued Dependent Claims
Regarding dependent claims 3, 10, and 17, Appellants contend
Conescu and Goel do not collectively teach the claim limitation "the
workflow generator alters the activity available at the print shop by changing
at least one of resource, dependency, or priority information for the activity
based on the changed condition." See App. Br .13. In particular, Appellants
assert Conescu's paragraph 12 does not teach altering priority information
for the activity based on the changed condition. See App. Br 13.
Because the claim recites "at least one of resource, dependency, or
priority information for the activity" based on the changed condition"
(emphases added), the Examiner has chosen to map the claimed dependency.
See Ans. 1 7. The Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute-
Conescu' s paragraphs 12 teaches the claimed dependency. See Ans. 17.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 3, 10,
17.
Regarding dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, Appellants contend Duke
does not teach the claim limitations "the changed condition comprises a
change in cost of a print shop resource; and the workflow generator
generates the second workflow based upon the change in cost of the print
shop resource." See App. Br. 14. In particular, Appellants assert the cited
Duke portion does not specifically discuss:
7
Appeal2014-008034
Application 13/036,147
a change in cost of a print shop resource, []or ... revising a
wodiflow in response to a change in cost of a print shop
resource . ... Duke does not appear to discuss detecting
changes in costs of print shop resources, nor does it appear to
discuss what, if any actions, to perform in response to such
changes in cost.
App. Br. 14.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner provides further
findings showing Conescu, Goel and Duke collectively teach the disputed
claim limitations. See Ans. 17-18. For example, the Examiner explains
why Duke teaches "a change in cost." See Ans. 17-18. Appellants fail to
adequately respond to Examiner's findings and therefore, fail to show
specific fault in the Examiner's findings. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952
F.2d at 391.
Further, because the Examiner relies on the combination of Conescu,
Goel, and Duke to teach the disputed claim limitations, Appellants cannot
establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re
Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For example, as
discussed above with respect to claim 15, the Examiner finds-and
Appellants fail to adequately dispute-that Conescu and Goel collectively
teach "detect[ing] ... a changed condition for the print shop" and "a
workflow generator ... generates a second workflow for the print job based
on the changed condition" and "a print shop." Therefore, Duke does not
need to also teach those claim elements.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims
5, 12, and 19.
8
Appeal2014-008034
Application 13/036,147
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
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
9