Ex Parte Kumpitsch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2014

11511786 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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.
11/511,786 08/29/2006 Richard C. Kumpitsch 10022/890 1428
28164 7590 03/21/2014
BGL/Accenture - Chicago
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
P O BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
PADMANABHAN, KAVITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2014 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 RICHARD C. KUMPITSCH, CHRISTOPHER M. FISHER,
HOLLIS H. MOORE, EDY S. COSILLO, and BARRY K. LAW
__________

Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a system
configured to develop, store, maintain, and deliver methodology content to
an end user. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Accenture Global
Services Limited (see App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“A methodology is a collection of information that explains how to
plan, mobilize and execute a certain type of work” (Spec. 1 ¶ 0006). The
Specification teaches that “methodologies must be accessible to various
levels of employees throughout the organization. Publishing methodologies
on an organization’s intranet or securely on the Internet makes the
methodologies instantly accessible to potentially any authorized individual
throughout the world” (Spec. 2 ¶ 0006).
The Claims
Claims 10-16 and 21-33 are on appeal. Claim 10 is representative and
reads as follows:
10. A system configured to develop, store, maintain and
deliver methodology content to an end user, the system
comprising:
a processor;
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory
comprising the methodology content comprising a first
methodology and a second methodology;
a) a database configured to store the methodology
content and the database comprising a metadata model
containing definitions of explicit and implicit relationships
between elements defined in the methodology content;
b) a validation tool for validating that relationships of
the methodology content comply with the definitions of the
explicit and implicit relationships between the elements
contained in the metadata model by comparing the
definitions of the explicit and implicit relationships between
the elements contained in the metadata model to the
relationships of the methodology content;
c) a publishing tool configured to populate fields in
presentation templates to create browser viewable
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

3
documents of the methodology content, wherein hyper-links
between the browser viewable documents are created using
the explicit and implicit relationships such that the browser
viewable documents are directly linked to one another, and
directly accessible from one another, in accordance with the
explicit and implicit relationships;
d) a first user interface configured to access the
methodology content and documents corresponding to the
first or the second methodology, respectively, the first user
interface being responsive to the selection of a selected
methodology comprising the first or the second
methodology;
e) a second user interface responsive to the selection
of the selected methodology, the second user interface
displaying browser viewable documents of the methodology
content of the selected methodology; and
f) an estimating tool configured to integrate the
methodology content into a project estimate document by
analyzing estimating factors and complexity values for each
task of the selected methodology to determine an estimated
time to perform the tasks, the project estimate document
including the estimated time to perform the tasks of the
selected methodology, the estimating tool further configured
to generate hypertext links in the project estimate document
to the browser viewable documents of the methodology
content.

The issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 14, 15, and 30-33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pronsati, Jr.,2 Prompt,3 Moisa,4 and
Mital5 (Ans. 4-10).

2 Pronsati, Jr. et al., US 6,678,716 B1, issued Jan. 13, 2004.
3 Prompt et al., US 2001/0034733 A1, published Oct. 25, 2001.
4 Moisa et al., US 2004/0030992 A1, published Feb. 12, 2004.
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

4
B. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Pronsati, Jr., Prompt, Moisa, Mital, and Rogatinsky6 (Ans. 10-
11).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 21-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Pronsati, Jr., Prompt, Moisa, Mital, and Rutten7 (Ans. 11-
14).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pronsati, Jr., Prompt, Moisa, and Mital
The Examiner relies on Pronsati Jr. for teachings of the processor,
memory, database, publishing tool, and first and second user interfaces (Ans.
5-6), but finds that Pronsati Jr. does not teach the validation or estimating
tools (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that “Prompt teaches validating that
relationships comply with the definitions of explicit and the implicit
relationships between elements contained in a model, by comparing the
definitions of the explicit and implicit relationships between the elements
contained in the model to the relationships of the captured schema” (Ans. 6).
The Examiner relies upon Mital for the use of hyperlinks (Ans. 7). The
Examiner finds that Moisa teaches “an estimating tool for integrating
methodology content into project estimate information by analyzing
estimating factors and complexity values for each task of the selected
methodology to determine an estimated time to perform the tasks” (Ans. 8).
The Examiner finds it obvious to
[I]mplement the system of Pronsati using the validation
feature taught by Prompt to validate that the relationships

5 Mital et al., US 6,003,040, issued Dec. 14, 1999.
6 Rogatinsky, S., US 2002/0069119 A1, published Jun. 6, 2002.
7 Rutten et al., US 6,632,251 B1, issued Oct. 14, 2003.
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

5
comply with the definitions in the metadata model by
comparing the relationships contained in the metadata model
to the relationships of the methodology content in order to
maintain a valid framework of methodology content

(Ans. 6-7).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that Pronsati, Jr., Prompt, Moisa, and
Mital render claim 10 obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. The Specification teaches that “a methodology is a collection of
information that explains how to plan, mobilize and execute a certain type of
work” (Spec. 5 ¶ 0021).
2. The Specification teaches that “explicit relationship definitions
can define how object types interact with one another generally. In one
embodiment, these interactions are defined in terms of actions, or
relationship operations, that are to be performed when certain conditions are
satisfied” (Spec. 6 ¶ 0022).
3. The Specification does not define “implicit relationship.” The
Specification does teach that “implicit relationships and links are also
generated by the transformation/validation utility 106. For example, an
implicit relationship from object D to object B is also generated by the
transformation/validation utility 106” (Spec. 6-7 ¶ 0023).
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

6
4. Figure 2 of the Specification is reproduced below:

“FIG. 2 shows an exemplary relationship configuration metadata model
200” (Spec. 7 ¶ 0027).
5. Pronsati, Jr. teaches “a system and method for managing
processes. The invention more particularly relates to a system and method
for customizing, adapting and creating business and technical processes for
an enterprise” (Pronsati, Jr., col. 1, ll. 20-24).
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

7
6. Figure 19 of Pronsati Jr. is reproduced below:

“FIG. 19 is a console interface displaying a process window, a link window
and a document control window” (Pronsati, Jr., col. 3, ll. 28-29).
7. Pronsati Jr. teaches that “system 10 is implemented in a general
purpose computing or information processing system 300 . . . . The
processing system 300 includes a central processing unit” (Pronsati Jr., col.
5, ll. 60-63).
8. Pronsati Jr. teaches “a processing storage or memory device
306 and a program/data storage or memory device 308” (Pronsati Jr., col. 5,
ll. 64-65).
9. Pronsati Jr. teaches
[T]he process information 14 includes task property
information 21 and application information 27. The task
property information 21 is indicative of a group of the tasks,
and the application information 27 defines software
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

8
applications that may be associated with the tasks. The
process information 14 further includes task relationship
information 25 that identifies the relationships between the
tasks to define each one of the processes.

(Pronsati Jr., col. 4, ll. 13-20.)
10. Pronsati Jr. teaches that:
The business process group 250 is substantially
similar to the technical process group 220, and includes a
hierarchical tree arrangement of tasks, including tasks 252
and 254, under the root node task 210. The tasks 252 and
254 are also defined by the task information 21, and are
arranged in parent/child relationships defined by the task
relationship information 25.

(Pronsati Jr., col. 5, ll. 10-16.)
11. Pronsati Jr. teaches that the
GUI 18 accesses the task property information 21 and the
task relationship information 25 25 [sic] to present a process
interface 200 (FIG. 2). The interface 200 includes a title bar
202, a menu bar 204, a tool bar 206 and a task view window
208. The task view window 208 displays a group of tasks
212 that are arranged relative to one another to define a
group of technical processes 220 and a group of business
processes 250.

(Pronsati Jr., col. 4, ll. 36-43.)
12. Pronsati Jr. teaches that the
[T]he GUI 18 . . . can be customized to meet the
requirements of the enterprise as described below . . . .
The link information 716 identifies tasks (“linked
tasks”) and their associated task views that are linked to the
tasks 401-417 (“linking tasks”). As described in more detail
below, the link information 716 acts as a short cut to the
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

9
linked task from the linking task, and also enables the linked
task to be launched from the linking task.

(Pronsati Jr., col. 7, ll. 36-45.)
13. Pronsati Jr. teaches “the process linking function of the present
invention enables a visual perception of the relationship between the
selected process and its linked processes through a console interface 1900
(FIG. 19) having a task view window 1902, a linking window 1904, and a
documentation window 1908” (Pronsati Jr., col. 14, ll. 57-62).
14. Pronsati Jr. teaches that
Before a task is selected from the console 1900, only the
task view window 1902 is displayed. Upon the selecting
and linking of a task, such as the “STOCK
PROCUREMENT” task, as indicated by the focus control
1906, the task view window 1902 reduces in size to
accommodate the display of the linking window 1904 and
the documentation window 1908 concurrently with the task
view window 1902.

(Pronsati Jr., col. 14, l. 64 to col. 15, l. 4.)
15. Pronsati Jr. teaches that “the window 1908 includes a group of
tabs including tabs 1950, 1952, 1954 and 1956 associated with the selected
“STOCK PROCUREMENT” task. Each one of the tabs 1950, 1952, 1954
and 1956 is associated with a category of documentation for a task”
(Pronsati Jr., col. 15. ll. 36-44).
16. Pronsati Jr. teaches that “page window 2506 displays
scheduling information” (Pronsati Jr., col. 17, ll. 1-2).
17. Prompt teaches that
Once the schema is captured preferably using the described
process, the captured schema should be validated. . . . [T]he
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

10
validity of the schema is evaluated by verifying that all the
relationships and primary keys are defined in the schema
(.orx) file that was created. In order to complete this
process, the application or schema logic must be known in
advance because some relationships or primary keys may be
implicit in the code, that is, not appearing in the data
dictionary.

(Prompt 19 ¶ 0203.)
18. Prompt teaches that
In order to declare any relationships that are missing (i.e.,
undeclared), the procedures outlined in the section entitled
Setting Relationships can be invoked. To assist the user in
ascertaining relationships that have been declared, particular
nomenclature can be selected accordingly. For example and
as indicated in FIG. 19A, declared relationships may be
designated by the nomenclature comprising a single dash
between two table names, like Customers-Orders 1916.
Doing so provides a visual indicator to a user that there
exists a relationship between the Customers table and the
Orders table.

(Prompt 19 ¶ 0204.)
19. Mital teaches that:
[D]ata are presented to the user in the form of pages or
documents displayed on a computer screen with hyperlinks
visible inside the pages or documents to jump between pages
or documents. Each hyperlink is the equivalent of one of the
folders in the endless hierarchical presentation above. Each
jump via a hyperlink is the equivalent of expanding a folder.

(Mital, col. 20, ll. 35-41).
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

11
20. Moisa teaches that “[h]igh level management provides
prediction to the executive level of decision like the estimation of the project
or task finish time or cost” (Moisa 1 ¶ 0007).
21. Moisa teaches that “VEMS provides the third time
management dimension which is the ‘estimated’ time for a project or project
task. The estimation of project completion date is done by the system, based
on the percentage of completion of all tasks and the time reports entered by
the users allocated to tasks, which differentiate” (Moisa 6 ¶ 0100).
22. Moisa teaches “PBS/WBS (Project Breakdown Structure/Work
Breakdown Structure)-A list with a specific format that records all the work
products (deliverables) and the work elements (phases, tasks, subtasks, etc)
with the time and cost estimation, resource allocation and scheduling for
each one” (Moisa 4 ¶ 0061).
23. Moisa teaches that
The project listing . . . displays high level project
information (project name, project manager, duration
scheduled/estimated, actual start date, actual finish date,
finish estimated/scheduled, percent of completion
scheduled/actual, BCWP/ACWP status (on/ahead schedule,
in progress, behind schedule, in progress, completed behind
schedule, waiting, on/ahead schedule, waiting). Color codes
can be used for dates, budget and percent of completion to
denote on or behind schedule.

(Moisa 6 ¶ 0099.)
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

12
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417. As noted by the Court in KSR, “[a] person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” 550
U.S. at 421.
Moreover, an “[e]xpress suggestion to substitute one equivalent for
another need not be present to render such substitution obvious.” In re Fout,
675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982).
Analysis
We conclude that the Examiner has met the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case that claim 10 is unpatentable based on the
combined teachings of Pronsati Jr., Prompt, Mital, and Moisa (see Ans. 4-
10; FF 1-23).
Appellants contend that “Pronsati fails to disclose a database
comprising a metadata model containing definitions of the explicit and
implicit relationships between the elements of the methodology content”
(App. Br. 4). Appellants further contend that “[e]ven assuming that the
hierarchal tree of Pronsati is a metadata model, which it is not, Pronsati fails
to disclose that the hierarchal tree contains definitions of implicit
relationships” (App. Br. 5). Appellants contend that “Pronsati also fails to
disclose or suggest, storing definitions of implicit relationships, as it would
be impossible to store a definition of something that is not defined, or
disclosed, in the reference” (App. Br. 5).
We are not persuaded. Appellants’ own Specification teaches that
“FIG. 2 shows an exemplary relationship configuration metadata model
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

13
200” (Spec. 7 ¶ 0027; FF 4). Figure 2 of the Specification depicts a
hierarchical model of different relationships (FF 4), reasonably supporting
the Examiner’s position that the hierarchy of Pronsati Jr. is a metadata model
in the context of the claimed invention (Ans. 15; FF 6, 10).
Pronsati Jr. describes explicit hierarchical relationships, teaching “task
relationship information 25 that identifies the relationships between the tasks
to define each one of the processes” (Pronsati Jr., col. 4, ll. 19-20; FF 9).
Pronsati Jr. further exemplifies explicit hierarchical or task relationships in
the business process group (FF 10).
While we agree with the Examiner that Pronsati Jr.’s multi level
hierarchical relationships, as exemplified in figure 19, demonstrate both
explicit and implicit relationships between tasks,8 the Examiner’s reliance
on Prompt provides literal support for the concept of implicit relationships.
Prompt teaches that “schema logic must be known in advance because some
relationships or primary keys may be implicit in the code, that is, not
appearing in the data dictionary” (Prompt 19 ¶ 0203; FF 17). Prompt further
describes that in “order to declare any relationships that are missing (i.e.,
undeclared), the procedures outlined in the section entitled Setting
Relationships can be invoked” (Prompt 19 ¶ 0204; FF 18). Thus, Prompt
recognizes that some relationships may be “implicit” (FF 17) and teaches a

8 In Pronsati Jr.’s figure 19, there is an explicit “parent/child”
relationship between the hierarchical tasks of “stock procurement”
and “create requisition” (FF 6). However, the relationship between
“create requisition” and “approve” is not “parent/child” (FF 6) and
may therefore be reasonably considered “implicit” given the
absence of any definition of an “implicit” relationship in the
Specification (FF 3).
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

14
process which incorporates these “undeclared” or “implicit” relationships,
consistent with the requirement of the database in claim 10 (FF 18).
Appellants do not argue Prompt in the Appeal Brief, even though the
Examiner relied upon Prompt in the Final Rejection (see Final Rej. 4-5).
Appellants, in the Reply Brief, contend that “Prompt cannot be read to teach
that missing relationships are implicit relations, let alone validating that
relationships of methodology content comply with the definitions of the
explicit and implicit relationships between the elements contained in a
metadata model” (Reply Br. 5).
We are not persuaded. Prompt teaches, in the context of hierarchical
relationships, that “some relationships . . . may be implicit” (Prompt 19 ¶
0203; FF 17). Prompt then teaches how these implicit or “undeclared”
relationships can be linked (FF 18). When Prompt’s identification of
“implicit relationships” in hierarchies is combined with Pronsati Jr.’s
teaching of hierarchical tree relationships between tasks (FF 10), we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious for the ordinary
artisan to “validate that the relationships comply with the definitions in the
metadata model by comparing the relationships contained in the metadata
model to the relationships of the methodology content in order to maintain a
valid framework of methodology content” (Ans. 6-7).
Appellants contend that
[T]here is no linking or associating between the documents
in Pronsati in accordance with the hierarchical arrangement
of the tasks. For example, in Pronsati a user could not click
on a hyperlink in a document of one task to directly access a
document of a related task because there are no links, or
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

15
hyperlinks, between the documents in accordance with the
explicit and implicit relationships.

(App. Br. 5.) Appellants contend that “Pronsati could not be adapted to
create hyperlinks between the documents in accordance with the implicit
relationships as the system is unaware of any such implicit relationships”
(App. Br. 6).
We are not persuaded. Pronsati Jr. teaches that
[L]ink information 716 identifies tasks (“linked tasks”) and
their associated task views that are linked to the tasks 401-
417 (“linking tasks”). As described in more detail below,
the link information 716 acts as a short cut to the linked task
from the linking task, and also enables the linked task to be
launched from the linking task.

(Pronsati Jr., col. 7, ll. 40-45; FF 12.) Thus, Pronsati Jr. teaches linking
tasks and teaches the use of shortcuts to connect these linked tasks. As
discussed above, Prompt teaches implicit relationships (FF 17-18). While
Pronsati Jr. does not expressly teach the use of hyperlinks to connect these
linked explicit or implicit tasks/relationships, the Examiner relied upon
Mital to teach the use of hyperlinks to navigate between different linked
information (FF 19).
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
“implement the system of Pronsati and Prompt using the hyper-links taught
by Mital to hyper-link documents in accordance with the explicit and
implicit relationships in order to allow for easy navigation between
documents” (Ans. 17). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

16
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”)
Appellants contend that “Moisa fails to fill the gap left by Pronsati,
Prompt, and Mital” (App. Br. 7). Appellants contend that
Nowhere does Pronsati, alone or in combination with
Prompt, Mital, and Moisa, teach, suggest or disclose an
estimating tool configured to integrate the methodology
content into a project estimate document by analyzing
estimating factors and complexity values for each task of the
selected methodology to determine an estimated time to
perform the tasks, as claimed.

(App. Br. 7.)
We are not persuaded. Moisa teaches an “estimating tool” where the
“estimation of project completion date is done by the system, based on the
percentage of completion of all tasks and the time reports entered by the
users allocated to tasks” (Moisa 6 ¶ 0100; FF 21). Moisa further teaches “a
specific format that records all the work products (deliverables) and the
work elements (phases, tasks, subtasks, etc) with the time and cost
estimation, resource allocation and scheduling for each one” (Moisa 4 ¶
0061; FF 22). Moisa also teaches that “[c]olor codes can be used for dates,
budget and percent of completion to denote on or behind schedule” (Moisa 6
¶ 0099; FF 23).
Thus, Moisa’s “estimating tool” analyzes factors such as deliverables
as well as complexity factors such as work elements including deliverables
and subtasks (FF 22) to provide an estimation of the time of completion (FF
21). While Moisa does not teach the use of hyperlinks, Mital teaches the use
of hyperlinks to connect information (FF 19).
Appeal 2011-011787
Application 11/511,786

17
B. and C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
These rejections rely upon the underlying obviousness rejection over
Pronsati Jr., Prompt, Mital, and Moisa. Appellants provide no separate
arguments specific for the claims at issue, but rely upon the argument that
the prior art does not teach a “database comprising a metadata model
containing definitions of explicit and implicit relationships” (App. Br. 8, 9).
Since we did not find that argument persuasive for the reasons given above,
we affirm these rejections for the reasons given by the Examiner.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pronsati, Jr., Prompt, Moisa, and Mital. Pursuant
to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 11, 14, 15,
and 30-33, as these claims were not argued separately.
We affirm the rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Pronsati, Jr., Prompt, Moisa, Mital, and Rogatinsky.
We affirm the rejection of claims 16 and 21-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pronsati, Jr., Prompt, Moisa, Mital, and Rutten.

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

cdc