Ex Parte Kumaran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2013

12212830 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2013)

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.
12/212,830 09/18/2008 Santhosh Kumaran YOR920010613US2 1036
45992 7590 06/24/2013
IBM CORPORATION (JVM)
C/O LAW OFFICE OF JACK V. MUSGROVE
2911 BRIONA WOOD LANE
CEDAR PARK, TX 78613
EXAMINER
JACKSON, ERNEST ADEYEMI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2013 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 SANTHOSH KUMARAN, PRABIR NANDI, and
KUMAR BHASKARAN
____________________

Appeal 2011-008387
Application 12/212,830
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008387
Application 12/212,830

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 16-21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to business process management and
integration (Spec. 1:8-11).
Claim 16 is illustrative:
16. A method carried out by a computer system for
designing a business process management system for process
brokering and content aggregation in collaborative e-commerce
comprising the steps of:
establishing an information model, an organization
model, and a business process model in the
computer system, wherein the information model
characterizes underlying data structures used by
the business process management system, the
organization model organizes users of the business
process management system according to
corresponding business roles, and the business
process model characterizes business events
received or generated by the business process
management system;
from the information model and the business process
model, selecting Adaptive Documents (ADOCs) in
the business process management system using the
computer system, wherein an ADOC links content
aggregated from various data sources to business
processes and the users, and dynamically exposes a
Appeal 2011-008387
Application 12/212,830

3
set of business services to a given one of the users
based on a role of the given user and a process
context;
based on business events and prerequisites of the
business events, designing ADOC state machines
using the computer system;
based on processing rules associated with the business
events, selecting commands that need to be
executed as part of state transitions using the
computer system;
when processing rules dictate collaboration with user or
software agents in the business process
management system, establishing macro flows
using the computer system, wherein the macro
flows are directed graphs that establish
relationships between activities of the agents that
correspond to nodes in the directed graphs; and
defining, using activity controllers in the computer
system, micro flow used to complete the activities
that correspond to nodes in the directed graphs,
with a state machine modeling behavior of the
activity controllers and commands effecting
behavior of the activity controllers.

Appellants appeal the following rejection: claims 16-21 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stewart (US 2002/0019797
A1, pub. Feb. 14, 2002) and Ferguson (US 6,237,011 B1, iss. May 22,
2001).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Stewart discloses:
Interoperability: The invention uses an open and flexible
architecture that can interoperate and leverage existing
Appeal 2011-008387
Application 12/212,830

4
investments in EAI/B2B technologies as well as enterprise
databases, Supply Chain Management (SCM), Customer
Relationship Management (CRM), and mainframe systems. The
invention also enables explanation of Common Object Request
Broker Architecture (CORBA), Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB),
Tuxedo, and COM+ applications. This inherent flexibility
provides a highly scalable and adaptable platform for the
development and deployment of future B2B initiatives.
(Para. [0071]).
2. Stewart discloses:
Pluggable Business Logic and Protocol Support: Embodiments
of the invention provide a plug-in architecture for dynamic and
intelligent routing of messages. This enables market makers to
design and implement business rules that meet their specific
needs. Additionally, multiple business protocols such as
RosettaNet and EDI can exist concurrently in the same
deployment-reducing the need for all trading partners to
standardize on one particular protocol. The invention also
provides a flexible framework for rapidly implementing custom
business logic that may be required to maintain a competitive
advantage.
(Para. [0069]).

ANALYSIS
Claims 16, 19, and 20
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments directed to
claim 16. App. Br. 9-14. We adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning, at pages 10-13 of the Answer, and sustain the rejection for the
same reasons set forth by the Examiner. We also sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 19 and 20 that were not argued separately.

Appeal 2011-008387
Application 12/212,830

5
Claims 17 and 18
Dependent claim 17 recites, “including a Process Broker Services
interface that redirects a business event from a client to an ADOC, and
further including an ADOC controller that acts on the business event based
on a state of the business event and a content of the business event.”
We are persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that “Stewart
discusses the interoperability of the business-to-business platform,” but does
not disclose the limitations of the claim. App. Br. 14-15.
The Examiner directs us to paragraph [0071] of Stewart as disclosing
the language of claim 17. Ans. 7. The Examiner does not specifically
respond to the Appellants’ argument. Ans. 13. Stewart’s paragraph [0071]
discloses interoperability with other software products, but does not disclose
whether a business event is redirected to a document, or whether a business
event is acted on based on a state of the business event and a content of the
business event, as claimed. FF 1. We therefore find the Examiner has not
set forth a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 17, and we do not
sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 17, and claim 18 that
depends from claim 17.

Claim 21
Dependent claim 21 recites,
including implementing each ADOC through a framework part
and a solution part, wherein the framework part persists
information including a current state of the ADOC, an owner of
the ADOC and a type of the ADOC, and the solution part
inherits from the framework part and persists business object
references to data objects.
We construe that to “persist[] information” is to store data.
Appeal 2011-008387
Application 12/212,830

6
We are persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that “[a]lthough
paragraph 69 of Stewart describes a ‘flexible framework’ for implementing
custom business logic, it is referring to a plug-in architecture for message
routing, not a part of any adaptive document (which is supposedly described
in paragraph 158).” App. Br. 16. We agree with Appellants because
paragraph [0069], to which the Examiner directs us (Ans. 8), appears to
discuss only a “plug-in architecture for dynamic and intelligent routing of
messages,” but not storing any data. FF 2. The Examiner does not respond
to this argument in any detail. Ans. 8. We therefore find the Examiner has
not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 21, and we do not
sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 21.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 16, 19,
and 20.
We REVERSE the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 17,
18, and 21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls