Ex Parte Novak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2017

12862216 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 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.
12/862,216 08/24/2010 Miroslav Novak 82263191 3612
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
GOLDBERG, IVAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIROSLAV NOVAK,
ALBERT REGNER, and ROMAN RUB AS
Appeal 2015-0072291
Application 12/862,2162
Technology Center 3600
Before: PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—10, 12—15, 17, and 19—28. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
February 18, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 30, 2015), the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 4, 2015), and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed September 26, 2014).
2 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, as the
real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2015-007229
Application 12/862,216
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claims relate to “a visualization technique and tool that
enable real-time and interactive visualization of the architectures of software
systems that have complex organizational structures” (Spec. 120).
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, with added bracketed notations and paragraphing, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A system to generate a layered visualization of a
software system, the system comprising:
[a] a storage device to store a model of a software system,
the model defining a plurality of entities of the software system
and relationships among the entities;
[b] at least one processor; and
[c] a visualization tool executable on the at least one
processor to:
[d] generate nodes representing the entities of the
software system model;
[e] assign the generated nodes to layers in a set of
ordered layers in accordance with rules associated with the
layers to generate a layered layout, including the layers, of
the software system, wherein the assigning includes
evaluating, for a given one of the nodes, the rules and
determining that the given node satisfies a particular one
of the rules, the given node being assigned to the layer
associated with the particular rule;
[f] render an interactive visualization of the layered
layout for display;
[g] receive importance levels for respective ones of
the nodes, wherein at least two of the importance levels
are different; and
[h] group at least some of the nodes into a group
node in the interactive visualization according to the
importance levels of the nodes.
2
Appeal 2015-007229
Application 12/862,216
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 9, 13, 15, and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (“Organizing UML Class
Diagrams in Layers,” 2005, Information and Communications Technology,
Enabling Technologies for the New Knowledge Society: ITI 3rd Int. Conf.,
pp. 39-55.) and Pich (US 2010/0063785 Al, pub. Mar. 11, 2010).
Claims 4—8, 10, 12, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) being unpatentable over Kumar, Pich, and
Chedgey (US 2008/0104570 Al, pub. May 1, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2—8, 21, 23, and 27
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
combination of Kumar and Pich does not disclose or suggest “receiv[ing]
importance levels for respective ones of the nodes, wherein at least two of
the importance levels are different” and “group [ing] at least some of the
nodes into a group node in the interactive visualization according to the
importance levels of the nodes,” as recited by limitations [g] and [h],
respectively (see Appeal Br. 6—9; see also Reply Br. 1—8).
The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper, and cites Pich as
disclosing the argued limitations (see Final Act. 8 (citing Pich || 36, 70;
Fig. 5)); see also Ans. 3—9 (citing Pich || 36, 70). However, we agree with
Appellants that there is nothing in the cited portions that discloses or
suggests the argued limitations.
3
Appeal 2015-007229
Application 12/862,216
Pich is directed to “[a] graph processing module is described for
visualizing relationships among components” (Pich, Abs.). Pich discloses
“[a]n importance analysis module 112” that “determines the importance of
components in the software system” {id. 136). More particularly, Pich
discloses
the goal of the importance analysis is to enable the graph
processing module 104 to present a visualization of the graph G
in which important components are positionally separated from
unimportant components (where the relative difference in
importance between components determines how far the
components are placed from one another[)].
{Id.). Pich further discloses
[t]he component-level analysis refers to analysis performed on
the graph G on a component-level basis, as opposed to analysis
performed on a group-level basis (to be discussed below). The
component-level analysis is biased by the group results, meaning
that the grouping information is used to influence the
component-level analysis performed on the graph G.
{Id. 144). Pich also discloses that “the group results refer to any kind of
results that are derived based on the graph information and the grouping
information” {id. 143), and “the importance values identify the relative
importance of the coalesced group nodes (e.g., group nodes Q, R, and S) in
the group-level graph Gg” {id. 1 62). More particularly, Pich discloses
the group-level importance values calculated in block 506
operate to bias the component-level probability values calculated
in block 508. For example, if a particular group is determined to
be relatively important in block 506 (as in the above example of
group S), the component level analysis performed in block 508
for the nodes in the important group will receive a boost relative
to the nodes of other (less important) groups.
{Id. 1 68). Pich further discloses “generating group results based on the
graph information and the grouping information; in other words, the group-
4
Appeal 2015-007229
Application 12/862,216
level importance values constitute the group results. Block 508 involves
using the group-level importance values to calculate the importance values
for each node in the component level graph G” (id. 170).
The difficulty with the Examiner’s analysis, as Appellants point out, is
that
the grouping of the nodes that is performed as part of the
coalescing of step 404 (and thus also step 504) in Pich is based
on “grouping information.” See, e.g., id., Tfl[ [0029], [0043].
There is no teaching or hint anywhere in Pich that the coalescing
of nodes of the component-level graph G to form a smaller
number of nodes in the group-level graph Gg is according to
importance levels of nodes. In fact, as further depicted in Fig.
5 of Pich, the importance values for nodes as determined in steps
506 and 508 are performed after the coalescing of nodes
performed at step 504 in Fig. 5 of Pich. What this means is that
after grouping (coalescing) nodes to form the group-level graph
of Pich, the importance values for nodes are determined in
steps 506 and 508 in Fig. 5 of Pich.
(Appeal Br. 7—8). In this regard, we note the cited portions of Pich relate to
“importance values identifying] the relative importance of the coalesced
group nodes (e.g., group nodes Q, R, and S) in the group-level graph Gg”
(Pich | 62), but do not disclose or suggest “receiving] importance levels for
respective ones of the nodes, wherein at least two of the importance levels
are different,” as recited by limitation [g], and then “grouping] at least some
of the nodes into a group node in the interactive visualization according to
the importance levels of the nodes,” as recited by limitation [h].
Responding to Appellants’ argument in the Answer, the Examiner
takes the position
[t]he disclosure in paragraph 0036 and FIG. 5 of Pich, of
“important components are positionally separated from
unimportant components,” demonstrates that “at least some of
5
Appeal 2015-007229
Application 12/862,216
the nodes” in Pich are grouped according to importance level.
Paragraph 0070 of Pich, also applied in the Final Rejection on
pages 7—8, also states that block 508 of FIG. 5 involves
calculating the importance values for each node. Thus, despite
Appellants’ arguments, importance values are used in grouping
at least some of the nodes in Pich.
(Ans. 4; see also id. at 5—9). However, we agree with Appellants that
“separating (or more specifically, positionally separating) important
components from unimportant components does not provide any teaching or
hint of grouping nodes into a group node according to the importance
levels of the nodes, as recited in claim 1” (Reply Br. 4). In this regard, Pich
discloses “if a particular group is determined to be relatively important in
block 506 (as in the above example of group S), the component level
analysis performed in block 508 for the nodes in the important group will
receive a boost relative to the nodes of other (less important) groups” (Pich
1 68 (emphasis added); see also id. Fig. 5). Thus, we fail to see, and the
Examiner does not adequately explain, how Pich’s disclosure regarding
“important components are positionally separated from unimportant
components” (see Ans. 4—9 (citing Pich 136)) discloses or suggests
“receiv[ing] importance levels for respective ones of the nodes, wherein at
least two of the importance levels are different,” as recited by limitation [g]
of claim 1, and then “group [ing] at least some of the nodes into a group node
in the interactive visualization according to the importance levels of the
nodes,” as recited by limitation [h] of the claim. The Examiner does not rely
on Kumar to address the argued limitations (see Final Act. 6).
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
6
Appeal 2015-007229
Application 12/862,216
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—8, 21, 23, and 27
that depend from claim 1.
Independent claims 9 and 15, and dependent claims 10, 12—14, 17, 19, 20,
22, 24—26, and 28
Each of independent claims 9 and 15 includes limitations similar to
limitations [g] and [h] in independent claim 1, and is rejected based on the
same rationale applied with respect to independent claim 1 (see Final
Act. 10—18). Thus, for the same reasons, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 10, 12—14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24—26, and 28, which depend from
independent claims 9 and 15.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—10, 12—15, 17, and 19—28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are not sustained.
REVERSED
7