Ex Parte Gilbert

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2013

10988169 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/988,169 11/12/2004 Timothy L. Gilbert 2004P57006 US 1072
45113 7590 02/12/2013
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
BIBBEE, JARED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte TIMOTHY L. GILBERT
________________

Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

2
SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, and 22-24.1
Specifically, claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, and 22-24 were rejected by the
Examiner as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Mireku (US 2005/0108627 A1, May 19, 2005) (“Mireku”).2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to an XML system and format for
managing multiple parametric objects. Abstract.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

In the Appeal Brief, Appellant groups independent claims 1, 9, and 17
together. App. Br. 16. We therefore select claim 1 as representative of this
group. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for managing objects, comprising:

receiving, in a data processing system, a selection of a
plurality of parametric objects encoded in an extensible mark-

1 Claims 5, 13, and 21 are cancelled. App. Br. App’x A.

2 The Examiner also rejected claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Final Rej. 2. This rejection was withdrawn by the Examiner pursuant to
amendment of the claims. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

3
up language (XML), each parametric object having associated
object parameters;

copying the object parameters of the selected parametric
objects;

creating an XML system by storing the object parameters
in a graph modeling relationships and behavior between the
selected parametric objects such that the plurality of selected
parametric objects are modified as a single entity while
maintaining discrete object parameters of each of the selected
parametric objects.

App. Br. App’x A.

Appellant similarly groups dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 together.
App. Br. 21. We therefore select claim 2 as representative of this group.
Claim 2 recites:
2. The method of Claim 1, further comprising

determining if one of the plurality of parametric objects
has an established relationship with another parametric object;

mapping the established relationship between the
parametric objects as a relationship internal to the XML system.

App. Br. App’x A.

Appellant similarly groups dependent claims 3, 11, and 19 together.
App. Br. 24. We therefore select claim 3 as representative of this group.
Claim 3 recites:
3. The method of Claim 1, wherein the XML system
comprises instructions for assembling the plurality of
parametric objects, instructions for interactively specifying
parametric object relationships, and instructions for modifying
the properties of individual objects.
Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

4

App. Br. App’x A.

Appellant groups dependent claims 4, 12, and 20 together. App. Br.
25. We therefore select claim 4 as representative of this group. Claim 4
recites:
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein the XML system
comprises instructions for modifying any common properties of
the plurality of parametric objects.

App. Br. App’x A.

Appellant groups dependent claims 6, 14, and 22 together. App. Br.
26. We therefore select claim 6 as representative of this group. Claim 6
recites:
6. The method of Claim 1, wherein the XML system
manages relationships between parametric objects and exposes
the parameters and a user interface for each parametric object.

App. Br. App’x A.

Appellant groups dependent claims 7, 15, and 23 together. App. Br.
27. We therefore select claim 7 as representative of this group. Claim 7
recites:
7. The method of Claim 1, wherein the XML system
comprises graph manager object.

App. Br. App’x A.

Appellant groups dependent claims 8, 16, and 24 together. App. Br.
28. We therefore select claim 8 as representative of this group. Claim 8
recites:
Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

5
8. The method of Claim 7, wherein the graph
manager object provides an internal interface to an array of
graphs, including filing, cloning, accessing parameters, and
applying transformations to each graph in the array.

App. Br. App’x A.

ISSUES AND ANALYSES

A. Claim 1
Issue 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Mireku
teaches or suggests the limitation in claim 1 reciting “a graph modeling
relationships and behavior between the selected parametric objects.” App.
Br. 18. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
As an initial matter, Appellant merely quotes the portion of the
Mireku Specification cited by the Examiner and asserts that Mireku does not
teach the disputed limitation.3 App. Br. 16-20. Such conclusory statements
and attorney argument are generally insufficient to sustain Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner has failed to make a prima facie case that the
limitation is anticipated by Mireku. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,

3 This applies globally to all arguments advanced by Appellant in the Appeal
Brief.
Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

6
952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
[patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
Nevertheless, with respect to Appellant’s assertion that Mireku fails to
disclose the disputed limitation, the Examiner responds that the serialized
objects, which includes attributes (parameters), are stored in an XML
document and then parsed into a SOM graph. Ans. 7. The Examiner also
finds that a DOM graph is created, which demonstrates relationships by
creating hierarchical relationships, such as root to child node relationships.
Id. (citing Mireku, ¶ [0046]). The Examiner finds further that the root class,
serialized object, contains attributes (parameters) that are common to all
objects. Ans. 7, (citing Mireku, ¶ [0048]). The Examiner finds that the
serialized object is then constructed into a heterogeneous graph comprising
instances of the derived classes of the objects. Ans. 7-8. The Examiner
finds that the derived classes contain the parametric objects and describe
what their behaviors or purposes are within the classes. Ans. 8 (citing
Mireku, ¶¶ [0049]-[0052]).
We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning. As an initial matter,
Appellant’s Specification provides no explicit definition of “behavior,” and
recites the word but once throughout. Spec. ¶ [0022]. Absent such a
specific definition, the Examiner may employ the broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). Appellant’s Specification recites: “[a]n XML object , according
to the disclosed embodiments, is a parametric object consisting of geometry,
Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

7
controls, and equations. The relationships and behavior are modeled in an
XML graph.” Spec. ¶ [0022]. Moreover, the language of claim 1 recites:
“creating an XML system by storing the object parameters in a graph
modeling relationships and behavior between the selected parametric
objects.” App. Br. App’x A. We therefore interpret “relationship and
behavior” in this context as being defined by the representations depicted in
the generated graph.
Mireku discloses that: “[i]n FIG. 6, an XML document 600 providing
sample XML data for a company and its employees is illustrated. This same
data can also be represented as a graph, where each node in the graph
corresponds to an XML element, as shown in the graph 700 of FIG. 7.”
Ans. 7; Mireku, ¶ [0046]. We agree with the Examiner that Mireku
discloses that serialized objects are constructed into a heterogeneous graph
comprising instances of the derived classes of the objects and that the
derived classes contain the parametric objects and describe what their
behaviors or purposes are within the classes. Ans. 8 (citing Mireku, ¶¶
[0049]-[0052]. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in
finding that Mireku discloses the disputed limitation.

Issue 2
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Mireku
discloses that the SOM can be modified as a single entity while maintaining
discrete object parameters of each of the selected parametric objects, as
claimed. App. Br. 21. We therefore address whether the Examiner so erred.

Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

8
Analysis
Appellant asserts that Mireku fails to disclose modifying the selected
parametric objects, as required by claim 1, while maintaining discrete object
parameters of each of the selected parametric objects. App. Br. 21. The
Examiner responds that Mireku discloses that the serialized object contains
attributes, which act as parameters, for a plurality of objects that are in XML
format due to XML serialization. Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that Mireku
discloses that a SOM is generated to create a unified single entity of the
serialized object classes. Id. (citing Mireku, ¶ [0053]). The Examiner also
finds that Mireku discloses that the SOM is a unified single entity by
encapsulating all of the instances of the instantiable serialized object classes
into one heterogeneous SOM graph. Ans. 8. The Examiner further finds
that the SOM graph is modified as a single entity by mapping the classes to a
newly created DOM graph and copying the values of the classes, which
contain the parametric objects, to the corresponding DOM graph nodes. Id.
The Examiner finds that after the SOM graph is copied to a DOM graph, a
new XML document, which models the old system, is generated. Id. (citing
Mireku, ¶¶ [0056]-[0057]). The Examiner finds that throughout this entire
process, all of the parametric objects contained within the classes are
maintained into the DOM graph and then into the XML document. Ans. 8.
We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning and adopt it as our
own. Mireku discloses that it is well-known in the art that the term
“serialization” is used to describe the process of taking an object and
transforming it to a “flattened” data structure so that, for example, the
contents of the object can be persistently stored or can be passed over a
network connection in a serial or stream format. Mireku, ¶ [0053].
Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

9
Moreover, Mireku explicitly discloses a “‘Serialized Object Model’, or
‘SOM,’ which is defined … as a heterogeneous graph comprising instances
of the instantiable SerializedObject classes.” Ans. 9; Mireku, ¶ [0053].
Every attribute of the objects from which the SOM is generated is
represented, providing all the necessary information to construct the
actual object during deserialization. Mireku, ¶ [0053]. We therefore
conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Mireku discloses the
limitation of claim 1 reciting “the plurality of selected parametric objects are
modified as a single entity while maintaining discrete object parameters of
each of the selected parametric objects.”

B. Claim 2
Issue
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Mireku
discloses the recitation of claim 2 reciting “determining if one of the
plurality of parametric objects has an established relationship with another
parametric object; [and] mapping the established relationship between the
parametric objects as a relationship internal to the XML system.” App. Br.
21-22. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellant asserts that the Examiner erred because Figs. 10, 11, and
13, and ¶ [0060], cited by the Examiner in the Final Rejection, do not meet
the claim limitation. App. Br. 23. The Examiner responds that Mireku
discloses determining if one of the plurality of parametric objects has an
established relationship with another parametric object; mapping the
Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

10
established relationship between the parametric objects as a relationship
internal to the XML system between each of the parametric objects. Ans. 9
(citing Mireku, Figs. 10, 11, and 13). The Examiner finds that these figures
show a serialized hierarchical representation of an XML document, which
shows mappings of object relationships. Ans. 9. The Examiner finds that
Fig. 13 specifically depicts the serialized classes containing variables
(parametric objects) and how each class is mapped to the deserialized
representation on the right. Id.
We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning and adopt it as our
own. Figure 13 of Mireku explicitly discloses the relationship between the
Employee object created at reference number 930 of FIG. 9 and the
corresponding SOM graph 1000 which was presented in FIG. 10. Mireku, ¶
[0059]. Moreover, the graph generated in Mireku also discloses the
relationship between the objects depicted. Mireku, Fig. 13; see also Mireku,
¶ [0070] (relationships maintained between parent and children nodes in the
graph). We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that
Mireku anticipates the disputed limitation of claim 2.

C. Claim 3
Issue
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Mireku
discloses the limitation of claim 3 reciting “the XML system comprises
instructions for assembling the plurality of parametric objects, … and
instructions for modifying the properties of individual objects.” App. Br. 24.
We therefore address the question of whether the Examiner so erred.

Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

11
Analysis
Appellant argues that nothing in Mireku discloses the disputed
limitation. App. Br. 24. The Examiner responds that Mireku discloses
instructions for assembling the plurality of parametric objects, instructions
for interactively specifying parametric object relationships, and instructions
for modifying the properties of individual objects. Ans. 9-10 (citing Mireku,
¶¶ [0069]-[0070]. The Examiner also finds that the Class Name Updater
disclosed in Mireku provides an interface for changing the class name). Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Mireku discloses that the Class Name
Updater allows the programmer to specify the class or interface which
performs the updates, using (for example) helper methods provided by the
SerializedObject class. Mireku, ¶ [0070]. Moreover, we find that Mireku
discloses that the properties of individual objects can be thus modified at
individual nodes of the SOM graph. Id. We therefore find that the
Examiner did not err in finding that Mireku discloses the disputed limitation
of claim 3.

D. Claim 4
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Mireku
discloses the limitation of claim 4 reciting “the XML system comprises
instructions for modifying any common properties of the plurality of
parametric objects.” App. Br. 25-26. We therefore address the question of
whether the Examiner so erred.

Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

12
Analysis
Appellant asserts that “[i]t is clear that nothing in the paragraphs
[[0069]-[0070]] of [Mireku] describe any common properties of a plurality
of parametric objects. Even if a name change is performed, each object must
be recursively examined and individually processed.” App. Br. 26. The
Examiner responds that paragraphs [0069]-[0070] of Mireku disclose the
disputed limitation. Ans. 10.
We agree with the Examiner. Paragraph [0070] of Mireku discloses
that class name changes can be invoked by the Class Name Updater, and that
“the name change is applied to all affected nodes in the SOM graph, and is
carried out by inspecting the root node and then recursively inspecting all
child nodes.” Mireku, ¶ [0070]. We therefore find that the Examiner did
not err in finding that Mireku discloses the limitation of claim 4 reciting “the
XML system comprises instructions for modifying any common properties
of the plurality of parametric objects.”

E. Claim 6
Issue
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Mireku
discloses the limitation of claim 6 reciting “the XML system manages
relationships between parametric objects and exposes the parameters and a
user interface for each parametric object.” App. Br. 26. We therefore
address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

13
Analysis
Appellant argues that paragraphs [0069] and [0070] do not teach the
limitation of claim 6. App. Br. 26. The Examiner responds that Mireku
discloses that the XML system manages relationships between parametric
objects and exposes the parameters and a user interface for each parametric
object, and therefore discloses the disputed limitation. Ans. 10 (citing
Mireku, ¶¶ [0069]-[0070]).
We agree with the Examiner. Mireku discloses a Class Name Updater
and a deserialization engine allows the programmer to specify the class or
interface which performs the updates to the objects, using (for example)
helper methods provided by the SerializedObject class. Ans. 10; Mireku, ¶
[0069]. Moreover, as explained, supra, the parameters of individual objects
can be altered. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in
finding that Mireku discloses the limitations of claim 6.

F. Claim 7
Issue
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Mireku
discloses the limitation of claim 7 reciting “the XML system comprises a
graph manager object.” App. Br. 27. We therefore address the issue of
whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellant argues that paragraph [0046] does not teach the limitation
of claim 6. App. Br. 27. Appellant argues that the paragraph describes
“DOM graphs” but does not disclose a graph manager object. Id. The
Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

14
Examiner responds that Mireku discloses a graph manager object. Ans. 11
(citing Mireku, ¶ [0046]). The Examiner finds that since the system of
Mireku discloses using a graph corresponding to a DOM and an SOM, a
graph manager is inherent. Ans. 11 (citing Mireku, ¶ [0053]).
We agree with the Examiner. Mireku discloses an XML document
which can also be represented as a graph, where each node in the graph
corresponds to an XML element. Ans. 11; Mireku, ¶ [0046]. Mireku also
discloses a “Serialized Object Model,” or “SOM.” which is defined as a
heterogeneous graph comprising instances of the instantiable
SerializedObject classes. Ans. 11; Mireku, ¶ [0046]. We agree with the
Examiner that a graph manager object is inherent to the generation of, and
modifications to, the graph disclosed in Mireku. A reference inherently
discloses an element of a claim “if that missing characteristic is necessarily
present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Schering Corp. v.
Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
Mireku discloses “a graph structure comprising nodes that embody a
structure of the object and values of serializable attributes of the object;
[and] writing the graph structure to the persistent store, such that serializable
information from one or more original class definitions to which the object
adheres is persistently captured.” Mireku, ¶ [0020]. Moreover, Mireku
discloses:
[d]eserializing the new instance of the object directly from the
serializable information persistently captured within the graph
structure, if the programmatic determination has a positive
result, and performing a programmatic migration of the
attribute values from the serializable information persistently
captured with the graph structure otherwise. Preferably, the
graph structure is written to the persistent store as a markup
Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

15
language document. Performing the programmatic migration
may further comprise directly accessing individual attribute
values from the persistently captured serializable information.

Mireku, ¶ [0020]. We agree with the Examiner that a graph manager object
is inherent to the graph and operations thus disclosed. We therefore
conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Mireku discloses the
disputed limitation of claim 7.

G. Claim 8
Issue
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Mireku
discloses the limitation of claim 8 reciting “the graph manager object
provides an internal interface to an array of graphs, including filing, cloning,
accessing parameters, and applying transformations to each graph in the
array.” App. Br. 28. We therefore address the issue of whether the
Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellant argues that Mireku does not disclose the disputed
limitation. App. Br. 28 (citing Mireku, ¶¶ [0086]-[0092]). The Examiner
argues that Mireku discloses a node graph manager object, which provides
an internal interface to an array of graphs, including filing, cloning,
accessing parameters, and applying transformations to each graph in the
array. Ans. 11 (citing Mireku, ¶¶ [0086]-[0092]. The Examiner finds that
Mireku discloses an array object which applies various functions in the
serialization/deserialization process. Id.
Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

16
We agree with the Examiner. We concur with the Examiner’s finding
that Mireku discloses that the XMLObjectOutputStream serializes an object
and returns an XML DOM graph. In this process, the DefaultXMLSerializer
invokes a static serialize( ) method in the SerializedObject class 1830 to
create this XML DOM graph. Mireku, ¶ [0086]. Furthermore, we find that
Mireku discloses that for each string in the array, the ArrayObject invokes
the Serialized Object again, which in turn invokes the SpecialObject to
serialize the string. Using this approach, the ArrayObject creates a DOM
graph comprising a parent node and the child nodes returned from the
SpecialObject. Mireku, ¶ [0088]. Mireku also discloses an object cache
1950, which is maintained to keep track of objects that have already been
serialized and which establishes a reference number to identify each
previously-serialized object. Mireku, ¶ [0089]. The reference number,
which is stored in the DOM graph, may be used during deserialization to
preserve commonality of references. Id. Consequently, we find that Mireku
discloses that serialized objects are graphed, assigned a reference number
stored and, if necessary, cloned (in the cache memory). Furthermore, we
have discussed supra how Mireku discloses that objects can be accessed and
their parameters altered and applied to the graph. We therefore find that the
Examiner did not err in finding that the limitations of claim 8 are anticipated
by Mireku.

Appeal 2010-008392
Application 10/988,169

17
DECISION

The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, and 22-24 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) 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).

AFFIRMED

tj