Ex Parte KongDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 6, 201311195461 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/195,461 08/02/2005 Raymond Lee-Man Kong CA920050012US1 (562) 4853 46320 7590 06/06/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/06/2013 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 1 ___________ 2 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4 ___________ 5 6 Ex parte RAYMOND LEE-MAN KONG 7 ___________ 8 9 Appeal 2011-005429 10 Application 11/195,461 11 Technology Center 3600 12 ___________ 13 14 15 Before ANTON W. FETTING, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and 16 NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. 17 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 18 DECISION ON APPEAL 19 Appeal 2011-005429 Application 11/195,461 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed August 3, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 10, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 10, 2010). Raymond Lee-Man Kong (Appellant) seeks review under 2 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 28-38, the only claims pending 3 in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant 4 to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 5 The Appellant invented transforming a process flow, and more 6 particularly, a solution for generating a second process flow in a different 7 model format than a first process flow. (Specification, para [0001]). 8 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 9 exemplary claim 28, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 10 paragraphing added]. 11 28. A method, 12 with a computer system comprising a processor and 13 storage device, 14 of transforming a process flow, 15 the method comprising: 16 [1] obtaining, 17 from the storage device, 18 a source process flow 19 in a first model format, 20 the source process flow including 21 a set of source elements; 22 and 23 [2] generating, 24 Appeal 2011-005429 Application 11/195,461 3 using the processor, 1 a target process flow 2 in a second model format, 3 different than the first model format, 4 based on the source process flow, 5 [3] wherein for each source element 6 in the set of source elements 7 that maps to a plurality of target elements 8 in the second model format, 9 the generating including 10 [4] applying a semantics mapping 11 of the source element 12 to the plurality of target elements; 13 [5] creating a container element 14 including the plurality of target elements 15 to which the source element is mapped; 16 and 17 [6] adding the container element 18 including the plurality of target elements 19 to the target process flow. 20 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 21 Schulz US 2004/0078258 Al Apr. 22, 2004 Claims 28-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by 22 Schulz. 23 Appeal 2011-005429 Application 11/195,461 4 ISSUES 1 The issues of anticipation turn primarily on whether Schulz describes 2 creating a target process flow based on and in a format different than, a 3 source flow, and whether there is a semantic mapping between the elements 4 of the two flows. 5 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 6 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 7 supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 8 Facts Related to the Prior Art - Schulz 9 01. Schulz is directed to workflow management systems. Schulz, 10 para. [0002]. 11 02. Conventional workflow systems exist which allow enterprises 12 to formalize the processes by which the enterprises achieve their 13 business objectives. Such workflow systems provide step-by-step 14 descriptions of tasks which must or should be performed as part of 15 the workflow, so that individuals or groups within the enterprise 16 can be assigned individual (or groups of) tasks. Schulz, para. 17 [0003]. 18 03. It may be problematic for one enterprise to interact with another 19 enterprise, while still maintaining the use of their respective 20 workflows as part of the interaction. For example, a workflow 21 associated with a first enterprise may have its own nomenclature 22 and/or semantics, which may be incompatible with the workflow 23 of a second enterprise. This is particularly true, given that such 24 Appeal 2011-005429 Application 11/195,461 5 workflows are often formulated completely independently of one 1 another. Another difficulty facing enterprises desiring to work 2 together is that workflows are often private or confidential in 3 nature, and the business may be hesitant to share some or all of 4 their private workflows with an external party. Schulz, para. 5 [0005]. 6 04. An abstraction level of a workflow is modified. A workflow 7 is analyzed to determine a set of tasks, which are combined into a 8 first virtual task within an abstracted workflow, and the first 9 virtual task is linked to the set of tasks such that a virtual 10 execution of the abstracted workflow corresponds to an actual 11 execution of the workflow. Schulz, para. [0007]. 12 05. Analyzing the workflow may include determining whether 13 conditions are met, which in turn may include inputting a selected 14 task, considering each succeeding task of the selected task, 15 determining that no internal task within the first set of tasks, 16 exclusive of the last task, immediately precedes an external task 17 that is not included within the first set of tasks, and determining 18 that no internal task within the first set of tasks, exclusive of the 19 first task, immediately succeeds an external task that is not 20 included within the first set of tasks. In this case, it may be 21 determined that the plurality of conditions are not met, a preceding 22 task outside of the first plurality of tasks and preceding the first 23 plurality of tasks within the workflow may be considered (the 24 preceding task immediately preceding at least a first pair of tasks). 25 The last task within the first plurality of tasks may be determined 26 Appeal 2011-005429 Application 11/195,461 6 to be immediately preceded by at least a second pair of tasks, and 1 a modified first plurality of tasks may be defined that includes the 2 preceding task, the last task, and all intervening tasks. In 3 combining the first set of tasks, the modified set of tasks may be 4 combined into the first virtual task within the abstracted 5 workflow. Schulz, paras. [0010]-[0011]. 6 06. Schulz describes a three-level model for allowing enterprises to 7 fully and easily collaborate with one another, while still taking 8 advantage of the enterprises' individual, existing workflows and 9 ensuring confidentiality of tasks within the workflows on an as-10 needed basis. The three-level or three-tier model involves, on the 11 first level, a first private workflow associated with a first 12 enterprise, and a second private workflow associated with a 13 second enterprise. On the second level, each of the private 14 workflows is abstracted, such that a first virtual workflow having 15 a first set of virtual tasks is generated which corresponds to the 16 first private workflow, while a second virtual workflow having a 17 second set of virtual tasks is generated which corresponds to the 18 second private workflow. Finally, at the third level, a 19 collaboration workflow is generated from the two virtual 20 workflows. The virtual workflows have state dependencies with 21 respect to their respective private workflows, such that a 22 completion of a virtual task definitively corresponds to a 23 completion of a corresponding actual task(s) within the private 24 workflow. Schulz, para. [0076]. 25 Appeal 2011-005429 Application 11/195,461 7 07. Expansion is an operation in which a workflow is joined with 1 another workflow by an addition of, for example, control flow 2 dependencies including routing and synchronizing tasks. 3 Reduction is the inverse of expansion which removes or reduces a 4 collaborative workflow of some type into two or more individual-5 workflows. Schulz, para. [0193]. 6 08. The operation of combining multiple workflows into a single 7 workflow may be implemented using the "expansion" operation, 8 while the operation of dividing workflows into parts for, for 9 example, assignment to multiple parties for implementation, may 10 be practiced using the "reduction" operation. Schulz, para. 11 [0280]. 12 09. Expansion combines two or more workflows from the same 13 level, so that one or more vertices in one is augmented by one or 14 more vertices in the other through parallelism or sequentialism. 15 The process of expansion requires the augmentation of the 16 existing workflows by coordinating and synchronizing tasks, i.e. 17 AND-splits and AND-joins. Schulz, para. [0289]. 18 10. Reduction allows a joined workflow to be separated into sub-19 parts, so that individual members of the coalition may implement 20 them, for example, in their respective workflow views. Formally, 21 reduction separates one or more vertices from a workflow, and re-22 links the dependencies that formerly referred to/from a vertex to 23 the vertex's neighbors. Schulz, para. [0315]. 24 Appeal 2011-005429 Application 11/195,461 8 11. Reduction involves the removal of route tasks that become 1 obsolete as a result of the reduction operation. Schulz, para. 2 [0319]. 3 ANALYSIS 4 We adopt the Examiner’s findings and analysis from Answer 6-10 and 5 reach similar legal conclusions. We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s 6 argument that the Examiner misinterpreted Schulz. Appellant contends that 7 Schulz fails to show (1) two different formats; (2) generation of the second 8 format workflow from the first; (3) generation of the second format 9 workflow based on the first; (4) the Examiner does not identify a teaching 10 within Schulz for the claimed "for each source element in the set of source 11 elements that maps to a plurality of target elements in the second model 12 format, the generating including:”; (5) target elements of the target workflow 13 being mapped to; and (6) the “‘reduction’ identified by the Examiner as 14 corresponding to the semantics mapping is not associated with a source 15 element. Moreover, this reduction is not applied to a plurality of target 16 elements. Instead, the reduction is applied to a workflow, not target 17 elements of the target workflow.” App. Br. 8-12. 18 As to contentions (1)-(3), Schulz describes converting a source flow into 19 an abstracted target flow based on the elements in the source. FF 04-06. 20 Appellant’s contentions appear to be drawn to a second set of source flows 21 in Schulz Fig. 4 rather than the target abstracted flow. 22 As to contentions (4)-(6), Schulz describes mapping each source element 23 to one or more target elements in Schulz’s reduction operation. The term 24 reduction itself refers to the subsequent elimination of redundant elements so 25 Appeal 2011-005429 Application 11/195,461 9 mapped. As the reduction operation is a replication of the original process 1 flow in greater detail, it necessarily and inherently retains the complete 2 semantic content of the original. FF 07-11. Appellant further argues the 3 Examiner has not shown the mapping being applied in Schulz. Reply Br. 4 10. But the claim does not narrow the manner of providing such a mapping 5 and Schulz’s duplication of the process flow elements in the reduction 6 operation inherently maps the source elements to the duplicated target 7 elements. Any duplication operation is necessarily a mapping by virtue of 8 the duplication operation itself. Again, no limitation on the nature of the 9 mapping is claimed. 10 As to separately argued claim 29, we are not persuaded by the 11 Appellant’s argument that the determination of a first plurality of tasks does 12 not identically disclose determining a first model format. App. Br. 13. 13 Claim 29 recites “determining the first model format based on the storage 14 object.” The claim makes no further narrowing of the manner of such a 15 basis. Thus it is sufficient that Schulz determine the model format of the 16 source flow based on the system’s knowledge of that format. Clearly such 17 knowledge must exist to perform Schulz’s subsequent operations, for 18 otherwise Schulz would not know how to access the data. 19 As to separately argued claim 32, we are not persuaded by the 20 Appellant’s argument that the "single workflow" of Schulz is neither source 21 elements nor a single target element - an element is not the same as a 22 workflow. App. Br. 14. Claim 32 recites “generating the single target 23 element in the target process flow.” The claim makes no further narrowing 24 of the manner of such generation or of the single element. Thus it is 25 Appeal 2011-005429 Application 11/195,461 10 sufficient that Schulz generates an element in the abstracted flow, which 1 Schulz does. 2 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 3 The rejection of claims 28-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by 4 Schulz is proper. 5 DECISION 6 The rejection of claims 28-38 is affirmed. 7 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 8 appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 9 § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 10 11 AFFIRMED 12 13 14 Klh 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation