Ex Parte Reddington et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

13182711 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 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.
13/182,711 07/14/2011 Francis X. Reddington END920110088US1 6938
76933 7590
IBM (END-KLS)
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
301 Congress Avenue
Suite 1350
AUSTIN, TX 78701
EXAMINER
COUPE, ANITA YVONNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
office@klspatents.com
kate@klspatents.com
hanna@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANCIS X. REDDINGTON and NEIL SAHOTA
Appeal 2014—007306
Application 13/182,711
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Francis X. Reddington and Neil Sahota (Appellants) seek review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1—15, the only claims
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellants invented a way of managing a collection of assemblies
in an Enterprise Intelligence (‘EE) framework. Specification 1:9—11.
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed January 21, 2014) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
April 10, 2014), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 22, 2013).
Appeal 2014-007306
Application 13/182,711
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method of managing a collection of assemblies in an
Enterprise Intelligence (‘El’) framework, the method
comprising:
[1] identifying,
by an assembly collection tool comprising a
module of automated computing machinery,
one or more processes for inclusion in a
specification of an assembly,
the assembly configured to carry out a business
capability upon execution in the El framework;
[2] identifying for each process,
by the assembly collection tool,
one or more tasks that comprise the process;
[3] identifying for each task,
by the assembly collection tool,
one or more steps that comprise the task;
[4] identifying,
by the assembly collection tool,
a sequence for executing the steps, tasks, and
processes in the assembly;
[5] generating,
by the assembly collection tool in
dependence upon the identified processes, tasks,
steps, and sequence,
the specification of the assembly;
and
2
Appeal 2014-007306
Application 13/182,711
[6] storing,
by the assembly collection tool,
the specification in a El assembly repository.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Ledford US 2003/0171947 A1 Sept. 11, 2003
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Ledford.
ISSUES
The issues of anticipation turn primarily on whether the claims recite
performing tasks without human intervention per se.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art - Ledford
01. Ledford is directed to an enterprise-wide business
process management system and method that operates across
multiple and diverse computer platforms to deliver workflow-
based business process management solutions. Ledford para. 2.
02. Ledford describes implementing workflows by a
workflow engine. Workflows can be defined as computer
software representations of an activity or activities performed by
3
Appeal 2014-007306
Application 13/182,711
an enterprise comprising a business process. A workflow engine
is a computer software program component that operates on the
computer software comprising the workflow to automate the
activity. For an enterprise, a business process can be broken into
business rules that define the process. These business rules can
then be categorized into work element categories and translated
into workflow elements. Delegates, which are discrete segments
of computer code that can represent a business rule, can be
designed to implement each individual workflow element. For
example, a delegate can retrieve data from a computer platform
other than the platform hosting a workflow engine. The workflow
can then be assembled and operated with the workflow engine to
accomplish the business process, that is, to perform many of the
workflow elements in an automated fashion. Ledford para. 14.
03. Ledford describes a delegate as representing a
process step, or business rule, that is unique to the workflow for
which it was designed. A generic delegate may be able to be used
in more than one workflow. These more generic delegates may be
stored in a delegate library, allowing a workflow designer to reuse
these delegates when assembling different workflows. These
delegates may comprise XML documents and multiple delegates
can be assembled into an XML document comprising the
computer software, or code, for a workflow. Ledford para. 15.
04. Ledford describes determining any reporting
requirements for the business process based on records-keeping
requirements or process monitoring. Reporting requirements may
4
Appeal 2014-007306
Application 13/182,711
be satisfied by a workflow generating electronic computer files.
Each reporting requirement can be a separate action within the
workflow. For example, in a lost/stolen credit card example, a
workflow may generate an electronic computer file with the
account number, cardholder name, date and time the lost/stolen
card was reported, the customer service representative’s identifier
number, and a case number. Ledford para. 59.
05. Ledford describes developing business rules that
represent the steps of the business process being managed, that is,
the steps that must be performed and the order in which they must
be performed to accomplish the objectives of the business process.
Ledford para. 61.
06. Ledford describes performing workflow analysis
and design that translates the determined business rules, data
needs, and data sources into a computer software model of the
business process. Visual programming techniques, such as
VISIO, can be used to support the design of a workflow. Ledford
para. 77.
ANALYSIS
Initially, we find that the Examiner’s reliance on Leapfrog Enterprises
Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007), is misplaced in an
anticipation rejection. See Ans. 4. That said, we agree with the Examiner
that the claims are broader than argued by Appellants.
5
Appeal 2014-007306
Application 13/182,711
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Ledford does not
disclose that all claimed steps are carried out by an assembly collection tool
(Br. 7—9) and that Ledford does not disclose generating, by the assembly
collection tool in dependence upon the identified processes, tasks, steps, and
sequence, the specification of the assembly and storing, by the assembly
collection tool, the specification in a El assembly repository (Br. 9—11).
Limitations 1—4 of claim 1 recite identifying various parts of an
assembly. That this is done by Ledford is uncontested. It is the manner of
doing so that is contested. Each of these steps recites performing the
identifying by an assembly collection tool. The implementation is neither
recited nor narrowed. Ledford describes doing so using visual programming
techniques, such as Visio. Although such techniques rely on human
guidance, this does not diminish the fact that with the human guidance, the
software identifies the workflow assembly components recited in these
limitations. Further, the software tool result is a computer readable model of
the assembled components, i.e. a specification.
Appellants’ argument that the claims generally are concerned with
identifying, without human intervention, all component parts and sequences
of an assembly configured to carry out a business capability (Br. 9) is
unpersuasive for the same reasons, viz. the claims do not recite performance
without human intervention.
We further find that the portions of the Specification Appellants cite
for support (see Br. 3) describe relying on user input for the identification,
viz. “identifying (312) for each process (204) one or more tasks (206, 212)
that comprise the process (204) may be carried out, for example, by parsing
the user input.” Spec. 17:21—23.
6
Appeal 2014-007306
Application 13/182,711
To the extent Appellants equate such parsing without human
intervention as the identifying step, we find that parsing is an inherent step
in any data entry operation, including that of Ledford, as it is the necessary
process for converting an otherwise meaningless string of input into discrete
data elements made understandable to the computer process.
As to separately argued claim 2, reciting generating a structured
document defining the steps, tasks, processes, and sequence of the assembly,
Ledford describes compiling the equivalent of a specification into an XML
document in its summary of the invention.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Ledford is proper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—15 is affirmed.
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) (2011).
AFFIRMED
7