Ex Parte Lane et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201713533007 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017) 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. 13/533,007 06/26/2012 Eoin Lane AUS920080310US2 1088 80878 7590 09/27/2017 Brown & Michaels (END) c/o Brown & Michaels, PC 118 North Tioga Street Suite 400 Ithaca, NY 14850 EXAMINER ELLIS, MATTHEW J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2165 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2017 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): docket@bpmlegal.com lwood@bpmlegal.com twood@bpmlegal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EOIN LANE, MEI YANG SELVAGE, MAGDA MAHMOUD MOURAD, and HARRY THOMAS PENDERGRASS1 Appeal 2017-000273 Application 13/533,007 Technology Center 2100 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal 2017-000273 Application 13/533,007 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method implementing a service oriented architecture industry model repository. Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: storing, by one or more computing devices, a plurality of topic maps in one or more storage devices, wherein each of the topic maps represents information using topics, associations, and occurrences, wherein each of the topic maps provides meta data for assets stored in an asset repository, wherein the meta data represents reasoning or inference logic, based on the information represented by the topic maps, for the assets of the asset repository which enable search and queries by specific domains for a plurality of different industry verticals, wherein the search and queries are provided by a service oriented architecture (SOA) industry model repository (IMR) layer of an industry model architecture system, wherein topic occurrence resource description framework triples are created for each occurrence of an element or index item in at least one of the topic maps; receiving, by the one or more computing devices, from a user, search terms for searching through the industry model architecture system, wherein the search terms were input into a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface is provided by a user interface layer of the industry model architecture system; executing, by the one or more computing devices, a search and query service, wherein the user search and query service is provided by an application and services layer of the industry model architecture system, wherein the application and services layer is a layer of abstraction between the interface layer and the SOA IMR layer, wherein communications pass between the interface layer and the SOA IMR layer in response, conducting, by the computing devices, a corresponding search of the industry model architecture system to find one or more assets of the asset repository that satisfies the search terms utilizing the inference logic to find the one or more assets; and 2 Appeal 2017-000273 Application 13/533,007 presenting the one or more assets and views of a subset of topic map associated with the one or more assets based on a role of the user. REJECTIONS Claims 1 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as being unpatentable over Fay (US 2009/0063522 Al, published Mar. 5, 2009), Alexander (US 2008/0126397 Al, published May 29, 2008), and Hunt (US 2009/0018996 Al, published Jan. 15, 2009). Claims 2, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fay, Alexander, Hunt, and Sabbouh (2006/0206883 Al, published Sept. 14, 2006). Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being anticipated by Fay, Alexander, Hunt, and Burke (US 6,789,252 Bl, issued Sept. 4, 2004). Claims 10, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being anticipated by Fay, Alexander, Hunt, and Amies (US 2009/0150981 Al, published June 11, 2009). Claims 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being anticipated by Fay, Alexander, Hunt, and Chandrasekhara (US 2010/0174693 Al, published July 8, 2010). 2 We consider the Examiner’s identification of the applicable statutory section as “102(b)” to be a typographical error. 3 Appeal 2017-000273 Application 13/533,007 OPINION The main issue raised in this case involves the limitation emphasized above, a version of which appears in each independent claim 1,16, and 19.3 The Examiner position is two-fold. First, the Examiner considers the limitation as not so narrow as to preclude using user validation of the search, a feature Appellants admit is present in Fay, for “presenting [] assets and views [] based on a role of the user.” Ans. 2—3. We agree with the Examiner that this is not an unreasonably broad construction because the claim language “presenting . . .based on a role” could refer to determining whether or not to present and does not necessarily require presenting different assets and views corresponding to different users. Second, the Examiner is also correct in finding that, even if the limitation is construed more narrowly4 to incorporate the latter requirements, for example, different users may see different results, that is still fairly disclosed or suggested by the cited paragraphs of Fay. See Final Act. 5 and Ans. 3^4 (citing Fay paras. 12 and 29). Appellants do not apprise us of any reasons supporting the belief that the “role-based visibility” of Fay’s SOA assets themselves (para. 12) is derived from the user-based restriction on who may perform the search. Paragraph 29 distinguishes authorization to view asset subsets and permissions to enter search criteria. We are not apprised of any disclosure in Fay to indicate that the permission to search the system implements the restrictions on viewing assets themselves. See App. 3 Arguments regarding the dependent claims are premised solely on their dependency on the independent claims. App. Br. 10—13. 4 We have considered both proposed constructions of the limitation in question and reach the same result. We need not reach the issue of whether the Specification adequately supports the narrower construction, as no rejection under § 112 is before us. See Ans. 3; Reply Br. 4—5. 4 Appeal 2017-000273 Application 13/533,007 Br. 8 (making this assertion without citation to Fay); Reply Br. 5.5 There would seemingly be no reason to associate a particular asset with a viewing restriction, as Fay expressly discloses in the cited paragraphs, if all users with permission to search could view any asset. The cited portions of Fay describe these as distinct permissions and Appellants have not pointed to any disclosure to indicate why they should not be so regarded. Appellants’ arguments regarding the lack of a motivation to combine the references and hindsight (App. Br. 9—10) do not address the specific facts and reasoning set forth by the Examiner regarding these issues (Final Act. 6, 7; Ans. 5). App. Br. 9-10. Appellants’ arguments do not inform us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citations omitted) (“Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de novo review of all aspects of a rejection.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(“The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant”); see Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. MILLC, 514 F. 3d 1244 (citing United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.1991) (“A skeletal ‘argument’, really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim. . . .”). DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. 5 The Reply Brief is not paginated. 5 Appeal 2017-000273 Application 13/533,007 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation