Ex Parte Lane et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

13533007 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

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