Ex Parte Irassar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2014

11946530 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
11/946.530 11/28/2007 Pablo D. Irassar CA920070084US1 (065) 9344
46320 7590 03/03/2014
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & 0" 'KEEFE, LLP
EXAMINER
STEVEN M. GREENBERG THANGAVELU, KANDASAMY
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
BOCA RATON, FL 33434 2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2014 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@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PABLO D. IRASSAR and SIMON K. JOHNSTON
Appeal 2011-011597
Application 11/946,530
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and JEREMY J. CURCURI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention renders a process model by parsing semantic
elements in a semantic process model and configuring, for each semantic
element, an instance of a unitary operational element in a visual model with
different inbound and outbound connections according to an identified type
Appeal 2011-011597
Application 11/946,530
of semantic element. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative with
disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for rendering a process model through a
configuration of a unitary operational element in a process
modeling data processing system, the method comprising:
parsing semantic elements in a semantic process model;
identifying different types for the semantic elements and
different connections amongst the semantic elements in the
semantic process model;
initializing a visual model to include instances of a
unitary operational element;
for each of the semantic elements, configuring an
instance of the unitary operational element in the visual model
with zero or more inbound and outbound connections
according to an identified type and connecting paths between
respective outbound and inbound connections of different
instances of the unitary operational element based upon the
different connections amongst the semantic elements; and,
displaying the visual model in the process modeling data
processing system.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Weber (US 2009/0113394 Al; published Apr. 30, 2009; filed
Oct. 31,2007). Ans. 3-11.1
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Weber’s process-model rendering method
discloses every recited element of claim 1 including initializing a visual
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed December
27, 2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 14, 2011
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed June 6, 2011 (“Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2011-011597
Application 11/946,530
model to include instances of a “unitary operational element,” namely those
associated with tasks, decision nodes, merges, and forks. Ans. 3-7.
According to the Examiner, for each “semantic element,” Weber configures
a unitary operational element instance in the model with zero or more
inbound and outbound connections according to an identified type of
semantic element as shown in Figure 3. Ans. 3-7, 13-16.
Appellants argue that Weber does not configure an instance of a
unitary operational element as claimed, but rather teaches multiple different
workflow structures. App. Br. 9-12. Appellants add that the Examiner’s
reliance on Weber’s rectangles representing nodes and tasks in Figure 3 is
misplaced in this regard, for these rectangles are all the same and are not
configured differently depending on different semantic element types and
connections as claimed. Reply Br. 2-4.
ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Weber configures, for each semantic element in a semantic process
model, an instance of a unitary operational element in a visual model with
zero or more inbound and outbound connections according to an identified
type of semantic element?
ANALYSIS
A key aspect of this dispute is the Examiner’s reliance on Weber’s
Figure 3 that depicts part of a process model 300 with paths 302-308 and
nodes 310-312 within workflow patterns. Weber f 0087. As shown in that
figure, split structure 316 splits path 1 into paths 2 and 3, where path 2
3
Appeal 2011-011597
Application 11/946,530
contains Tasks A and B associated with nodes 310 and 312 respectively, and
path 3 contains Task C associated with node 314. Id. Merge structure 318
merges paths 2 and 3 into path 4 as shown in Weber’s Figure 3 below. Id.
314
Weber’s Figure 3 showing merging paths 2 and 3 into path 4
In the rejection, the Examiner refers to, among other things, Weber’s
Figure 3 as teaching a process model with “semantic elements” with
different connections, namely those associated with task activities, decision
nodes, merges, and forks. See Ans. 4-5. The Examiner also refers to
Weber’s Figure 3 as rendering a process model through tasks, inbound and
outbound connections, decision nodes, and merges in connection with
configuring an instance of a unitary operational element according to an
identified semantic element type, as claimed. Ans. 6.
Our emphasis above underscores the fact that the Examiner’s findings
regarding the recited semantic elements and associated unitary operational
elements are not limited to solely the rectangular nodes 310-312 for Tasks
A-C in Weber’s Figure 3 as Appellants seemingly suggest. See Reply Br. 3-
4 (arguing that the Examiner improperly construed the recited “unitary
operational element” as rectangles). Rather, the Examiner’s position is also
4
Appeal 2011-011597
Application 11/946,530
based on other nodes in this figure, namely the decision nodes, merges, and
forks represented by the split and merge structures 316 and 318. Although
the Examiner focuses principally on the task-based semantic elements and
associated nodes 310-314 in responding to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 13-
lb), the Examiner’s rejection nonetheless also refers to the split and merge
nodes 316, 318 in connection with configuring instances of unitary
operational elements. See Ans. 4-6.
So even assuming, without deciding, that Weber’s task-based
rectangular nodes 310-314 are all the same and cannot be configured
differently (at least regarding inbound and outbound connections) as
Appellants contend (Reply Br. 2-3), Appellants still have not persuasively
rebutted the Examiner’s position that is not based solely on these task-based
“unitary operational elements,” but also the splitting and merging unitary
operational elements as well.
That said, nothing in claim 1 precludes configuring the task-based
nodes 310-314 in Weber’s Figure 3 even if the Examiner’s mapping was so
limited (which it is not). As shown in that figure, these unitary operational
elements are each configured with one inbound and outbound connection,
namely one input and one output. Not only are the associated task-based
semantic elements associated with different types (A, B, and C), but also
different connections among these elements are shown by the different
relationships between these task-based elements by the arrows in Weber’s
Figure 3.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2-19 not argued separately with
particularity.
5
Appeal 2011-011597
Application 11/946,530
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-19 under § 102.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 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
ELD
6