Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

12277934 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/277,934 11125/2008
75949 7590
IBM CORPORATION
C/O: Fabian Vancott
215 South State Street
Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
06/23/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xin Peng Liu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CN920070110US 1140403-040 6920
EXAMINER
CHOI, YUK TING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
patents@fabianvancott.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIN PENG LIU, XI NING WANG, LIANG XUE,
KE XIN ZHOU, and YU CHEN ZHOU
Appeal2013-005461
Application No. 12/277,934
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants' invention is a method for enforcing context model based
policies with forward chaining and a policy engine, especially in a Service
Oriented Architecture system. Spec. 2. The invention includes applying a
policy set including a plurality of policies to an instantiated context model,
which includes a set of referenced instance documents in XML formats. The
method further includes determining whether the instantiated context model
Appeal2013-005461
Application No. 12/277,934
should be updated, and if so, executing an updating operation. Next, a new
instantiated context model is generated according to the updated instance
documents and the instantiated context model, and the policy set is applied
to the new instantiated context model. Abstract.
Claims 1 and 11 are exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for enforcing a number of context model
based policies with forward chaining, the method comprising:
applying a policy set, including a plurality of policies each having a
condition part and an action part, to an instantiated context model, in which
the instantiated context model is derived by replacing each document in an
abstract context model with a corresponding instance document, and in
which the instantiated context model comprises a number of referenced
instance documents;
determining whether the instantiated context model should be updated;
in response to said determination indicating that the instantiated context
model should be updated, executing an updating operation to produce
updated instance documents;
generating a new instantiated context model according to the updated
instance documents; and
applying the policy set to the new instantiated context model to facilitate
communication among components in a Service Oriented Architecture.
11. A computer-implemented policy engine for enforcing a
number of context model based policies with forward chaining, the policy
engme compnsmg:
at least one processor; and
2
Appeal2013-005461
Application No. 12/277,934
a memory communicatively coupled to said at least one processor,
said memorystoring machine-executable instructions that, when executed by
said at least one processor, cause said at least one processor to implement:
a policy application device that applies a policy set including a
plurality of policies to an instantiated context model, the instantiated context
model comprising a set of referenced instance documents in XML format,
the set of referenced instance documents comprising inter-document
references among the instance documents within the set of referenced
instance documents;
an updating determining module that determines whether the
instantiated context model should be updated;
an updating module that executes an updating operation;
a context model regenerator that re-generates a new instantiated context
model according to the updated instance documents and the instantiated
context model; and
in which the new instantiated context model is provided to the policy
application device and the policy application device applies the policy set to
the new instantiated context model; and
in which the policies include a condition part and an action part.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Yoshimura US 2002/0169753 Al Nov. 14, 2002
Wang US 2005/0204054 Al Sep. 15,2005
Graves US 2005/0234682 Al Oct. 20, 2005
Zondervan US 2006/0106879 Al May 18, 2006
Vinberg US 2008/0059214 A 1 Mar. 6, 2008
Comstock US 2008/0120685 Al May 22, 2008
3
Appeal2013-005461
Application No. 12/277,934
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1--4, 6, 10, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Vinberg and Wang.
Claims 11-14, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Vinberg, Wang, and Yoshimura.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vinberg, Wang, and Zondervan.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vinberg, Wang, Yoshimura, and Zondervan.
Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vinberg, Wang, and Graves.
Claims 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vinberg, Wang, Yoshimura, and Graves.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vinberg, Wang, Graves, and Comstock.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vinberg, Wang, Yoshimura, Graves, and Comstock.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed December 7, 2012), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed
March 14, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 31,
2013) for their respective details.
ISSUES
Appellants argue that the phrase "computer readable storage medium"
must be construed so as to exclude transitory embodiments. See App. Br. 13.
4
Appeal2013-005461
Application No. 12/277,934
Appellants contend, inter alia, that Vinberg fails to disclose an
instantiated context model that is derived by replacing each document in an
abstract context model with a corresponding instance document. App. Br.
14, 10. Further, Appellants argue that even if Vinberg can be read to replace
a single document with a corresponding instance document, Vinberg does
not disclose replacing each document in an abstract context model. App. Br.
15, 16.
Appellants assert that the combination of Vinberg, Wang, and
Yoshimura fails to disclose or suggest a set of referenced instance
documents comprising inter-document references among the instance
documents. App. Br. 24--25.
With respect to dependent claim 15, Appellants further argue that
Vinberg, Wang, Yoshimura, and Zondervan fail to disclose or suggest a
determining unit "that determines whether there is a modification operation
of which the modification content equals or contains the modification
contents of other modification operations." App. Br. 29. (Emphasis
omitted).
Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does claim 21 recite nonstatutory subject matter?
2. Does Vinberg disclose an instantiated context model derived by
replacing each document in an abstract context model with a corresponding
instance document?
3. Does the combination of Vinberg, Wang, and Yoshimura disclose
or suggest a set of referenced instance documents in XML format, the set of
referenced instance documents comprising inter-document references among
the instance documents?
5
Appeal2013-005461
Application No. 12/277,934
4. Does the combination of Vinberg, Wang, Yoshimura, and
Zondervan disclose or suggest determining whether there is a modification
operation of which the modification content equals or contains the
modification contents of other modification operations?
ANALYSIS
SECTION 101 REJECTION OF CLAIM 21
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that "computer
readable storage medium" must be construed in such a way that excludes
propagation media. See App. Br. 13. Subsequent to the non-precedential
decision in Ex parte Hu cited by Appellants (App. Br. 13), the Board held in
a precedential decision that a recited machine-readable storage medium,
having a program stored thereon, and absent an express limitation of scope
to non-transitory storage media, is ineligible under § 101 because it
encompasses transitory media. Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857,
1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential). Appellant's Specification, particularly
paragraphs [0024] and [0025], does not disclaim propagation media or
transitory propagating signals from the meaning of "computer readable
storage medium." Without any such disclaimer in the Specification, we
agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"computer readable storage medium" includes non-statutory embodiments
such as transitory propagating signals.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 21 as
being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. We sustain the§ 101 rejection.
6
Appeal2013-005461
Application No. 12/277,934
PRIOR ART REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1--4, 6, 10, AND 21
The Examiner finds that Vinberg discloses an instantiated context
model derived by replacing each document in an abstract context model with
a corresponding instance document. Ans. 6-7. We do not agree.
Vinberg discloses a system definition model (SDM) that describes a
system that can be managed. i-f 0021. In an example, "SDM 200 includes a
component corresponding to each of one or more software and/or hardware
components being managed in a system." i-f 0038. In certain embodiments,
"[e]ach component in the SDM corresponds to or is associated with a type,
an instance, and possibly one or more configurations." i-f 0058. Associated
with each component in SDM 200 is one or more information pages. i-f 0045.
Even if we construe the information pages of Vinberg as correspondent to
the claimed instance documents, we agree with Appellants that Vinberg' s
SDM is not derived by replacing each document in an abstract context
model with a corresponding instance document. App. Br. 15-16.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Vinberg discloses the claimed
replacement in paragraph [0058]. There, Vinberg discloses that each
component in the SDM corresponds to or is associated with a type, and
instance, and possibly one or more configurations. i-f 0058. The Examiner
states that "the SDM is implemented by replacing the a (sic) general
template or a class type having a general information page[ s] or a general
information document[ s] with an instance, which is a specific instance or an
occurrence of a type which corresponds to an actual physical component."
FinalAct. 6 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner cites to Vinberg paragraphs
[0045] and [0058], but neither paragraph supports the Examiner's position
7
Appeal2013-005461
Application No. 12/277,934
that, as claimed, "each document in an abstract context model" is replaced
with "a corresponding instance document."
We thus conclude that the Examiner erred in combining Vinberg and
Wang to achieve the invention recited in claims 1--4, 6, 1 10, and 21. We do
not sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection.
CLAIMS
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, whose § 103 rejection we do not
sustain supra. We have reviewed Zondervan and we find that it does not
remedy the deficiencies of Vinberg and Wang. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 5 over Vinberg, Wang, and Zondervan, for the reasons
given with respect to the rejection of claim 1, supra.
CLAIMS 7-9
These claims depend from claim 1, whose § 103 rejection we do not
sustain supra. We have reviewed Graves and Comstock and we find that
they do not remedy the deficiencies of Vinberg and Wang. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 7-9, for the reasons given with respect to
the rejection of claim 1, supra.
1 Claim 6 recites "the method according to any one of claim 1," language
similar to that ordinarily used in a multiple dependent claim. Because claim
6 only mentions claim 1 as a parent claim, however, we treat it as an
ordinary dependent claim.
8
Appeal2013-005461
Application No. 12/277,934
CLAIMS 11-14 AND 16-202
We do not agree with Appellants' argument that the combination of
Vinberg, Wang, and Yoshimura fails to disclose all the limitations of claim
11. Appellants argue what the Examiner already concedes, namely that
Vinberg and Wang do not disclose a set of referenced instance documents
"comprising inter-document references among the instance documents."
App. Br. 24--25. Appellants then simply assert that Yoshimura "also fails to
teach or suggest this subject matter." However, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Yoshimura discloses a document management
database that "manages inter-document relation information ... made up of a
document template type 111, a keyword 112, and a relation 113 between the
document template types." See Final Rej. 11; Yoshimura i-f 0040.
Appellants' argument that Wang is silent regarding a referenced
instance document of any kind, or regarding referenced instance documents
comprising inter-document references among the instance documents (App.
Br. 25), is also not persuasive to show Examiner error. The Examiner relied
on Vinberg to disclose instance documents, and on Yoshimura to show a set
of documents with inter-document references. The Examiner only relied on
Wang to disclose documents in XML. Final Rej. 11, citing Wang i-f 0029.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in combining Vinberg,
Wang, and Yoshimura to arrive at the invention recited in claim 11, and we
sustain the§ 103 rejection. We also sustain the§ 103 rejection of claims 12-
14 and 16-20, not separately argued with particularity.
2 Claims 16, 1 7, and 20, similar to claim 6, recite "any one of claim 11."
Because these claims mention only one parent claim, we treat claims 16, 17,
and 20 as ordinary dependent claims.
9
Appeal2013-005461
Application No. 12/277,934
CLAIM 15
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that paragraph
0082 of Vinberg discloses the claimed determining unit "that determines
whether there is a modification operation of which the modification content
equals or contains the modification contents of other modification
operations when the confliction detecting unit detects that the plurality of
modification operations with conflicted modification contents is to be
executed on one instance document." See App. Br. 29-30. Appellants focus
on the italicized portion, "equals or contains the modification contents of
other modification operations," and allege that "Vinberg simply fails to
teach or suggest this determination process." App. Br. 30. (Emphasis
omitted).
In contrast to Appellants' general allegation, the Examiner finds that
Vinberg discloses "whenever a new policy is associated with a component it
is added as a new policy information page." If a component has multiple
policy information pages, these pages "can be analyzed by a conflict
resolution agent in order to combine the policies into a single policy
information page ... in a manner which satisfies all the policies."
Alternately, the conflict resolution agent "may flag certain conflicts for
human resolution." Vinberg i-f 0082. We agree with the Examiner that
Vinberg's teaching of combining policies into a single policy information
page in a manner which satisfies all the policies corresponds to the claim
limitation of determining whether there is a modification operation, of which
the modification content equals or contains the modification contents of
other modification operations. We find that this section of Vinberg also
10
Appeal2013-005461
Application No. 12/277,934
discloses detecting that a plurality of modification operations with conflicted
modification contents are to be executed on one instance document.
We find that the combination of Vinberg, Wang, Yoshimura, and
Zondervan discloses all the limitations of claim 15, and therefore that the
Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 15. We sustain the§ 103 rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Claim 21 recites nonstatutory subject matter.
2. Vinberg does not disclose an instantiated context model derived by
replacing each document in an abstract context model with a corresponding
instance document.
3. The combination of Vinberg, Wang, and Yoshimura discloses a set
of referenced instance documents in XML format, the set of referenced
instance documents comprising inter-document references among the
instance documents.
4. The combination ofVinberg, Wang, Yoshimura, and Zondervan
suggests determining whether there is a modification operation of which the
modification content equals or contains the modification contents of other
modification operations.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 11-21 is affirmed. The
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11