Ex Parte Reed et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201612262629 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/262,629 10/31/2008 63759 7590 05/27/2016 DUKEW. YEE YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C. P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Darwin G. Reed 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. 07-1213-US-NP 6578 EXAMINER MOLL, NITHYA JANAKIRAMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2016 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): ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com mgamez@yeeiplaw.com patentadmin@boeing.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DARWIN G. REED, MARK A. DAHL, JERRY K. LAWRENCE, and DAVID P. KNAWA Appeal2014-007703 Application 12/262,629 1 Technology Center 2100 Before LARRY J. HUME, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, and 10-23. Appellants have previously canceled claims 3, 7, and 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the Boeing Company. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-007703 Application 12/262,629 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention "relates generally to an improved data processing system and ... more particularly ... to a computer implemented method, apparatus, and computer usable program code for managing part standard geometry in one or more computer aided design systems in a part management environment." Spec. ,-r 2. Exemplary Claims Claims 1, 6, and 12, reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis and formatting added): 1. A computer implemented method for managing parts used by a plurality of different types of computer aided design systems, the computer implemented method comprising: creating a master model of a part family, the master model usable to configure a set of parts in the part family, and wherein a first format of the master model is platform independent of a plurality of corresponding formats used by the plurality of different types of computer aided design systems to handle the parts in the part family; responsive to a request to distribute a particular part in the part family, creating a view of the master model capable of being configured to be used to create a three-dimensional model of the particular part to form a geometric view, wherein the geometric view comprises parametric information about the 2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Jan. 21, 2014); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 4, 2014); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 7, 2014); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 24, 2013); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Oct. 31, 2008). 2 Appeal2014-007703 Application 12/262,629 particular part and dimension information for the particular part; responsive to a request for the particular part for use by a selected type of computer aided design system in the plurality of different types of computer aided design systems, creating a part model for the particular part, wherein the part model is usable by the selected type of computer aided design system from content stored in a storage system to form an instance of the part; and sending the instance of the part for use by the selected type of computer aided design system. 6. A computer implemented method for managing parts, the computer implemented method comprising: creating parts standard data for a part wherein the parts standard data has a set of views comprising a document view, a data view, and a geometric view for the part, wherein the set of views is created from a single source of parts data comprising a geometric master model having a first format independent of differing formats used by a plurality of different types of computer aided design systems used to handle parts information; and distributing the set of views for the part within a network data processing system in which the plurality of different types of computer aided design systems is present. 12. An apparatus comprising: a network data processing system; and a part management environment configured to execute on the network data processing system, wherein the part management environment comprises: a selection service configured to receive input containing selection criteria for a part and generating a request for a particular part model useable by a particular computer aided design system; a geometry service configured to create an explicit computer aided geometry from the request and from data from 3 Appeal2014-007703 Application 12/262,629 a single source comprising a geometric master model of a part family, the geometric master model having a first format independent of differing formats used by a plurality of different types of computer aided design systems used to handle parts information; and a product standards application service configured to apply metadata to the explicit computer aided geometry to form the part model. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Freitag Tompras et al. ("Tompras") US 2006/0265496 Al US 7,469,242 B2 Rejections on Appeal Nov. 23, 2006 Dec. 23, 2008 RI. Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 10-13, and 15-233 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Freitag. Final Act. 3. R2. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Freitag and Tompras. Final Act. 13. CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8-20), we decide the appeal of anticipation Rejection RI of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 15-21 on the basis of representative claim 1; we decide the appeal of anticipation Rejection RI of claims 6, 8-11, 22, and 23 on the basis of representative 3 We note the Examiner omitted claims 21-23 in the explicit statement of Rejection RI (Final Act. 3), but otherwise addressed these claims in the detailed rejection. Final Act. 11-12. 4 Appeal2014-007703 Application I2/262,629 claim 6; and we decide the appeal of anticipation Rejection RI of claims I2 and I3 on the basis of representative claim I2. Remaining claim I 4 in obviousness Rejection R2, not argued separately, stands or falls with independent claim I2 from which it depends. 4 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims I, 2, 4---6, 8, and I0-23, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims I, 6, and I2 for emphases as follows. 1. Anticipation Rejection RI of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and I5-2I Issue 1 Appellants argue (App. Br. I I-I 7; Reply Br. 2-5) the Examiner's rejection of claim I under 35 U.S.C. § I 02(b) as being anticipated by Freitag is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: 4 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 5 Appeal2014-007703 Application 12/262,629 Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses a computer implemented method that includes, inter alia, the conditional step of ( 1) "responsive to a request for the particular part for use by a selected type of computer aided design system in the plurality of different types of computer aided design systems, creating a part model for the particular part, wherein the part model is usable by the selected type of computer aided design system from content stored in a storage system to form an instance of the part;" and the step of (2) "sending the instance of the part for use by the selected type of computer aided design system," as recited in claim 1? Analysis Appellants contend the key distinction between Freitag and the claimed invention is that "Freitag does not actually create an instance of a part and then transmit that instance, as claimed." App. Br. 12. Allegedly, Freitag only translates the data via adapters to directly modify the modeling kernel. Id. (citing Freitag i1i1 51 and 54). According to Appellants, these modeling kernel changes are then propagated to other users of the network via adapters or by direct translation. Appellants emphasize that Freitag is not creating different instances of the part for each user, and then transmitting those instances, as claimed. App. Br. 13. Further, Appellants argue "Freitag discloses that the model itself resides only in the modeling kernel," and "[o]nly a graphical representation of the model ... is sent over the network." Id. (citing Freitag i-f 65). "In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations ... limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term 6 Appeal2014-007703 Application 12/262,629 "must be sutliciently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description."). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds Appellants' argument hinges on the interpretation of the claim phrase "instance of a part." Ans. 3. In agreement with the Examiner, we note Appellants have not cited to a definition of "instance" in the Specification or claims. Id. We further find the Examiner broadly but reasonably reads the recited "instance of a part" onto Freitag's sending of a graphical model representation with essential structural information. Ans. 4. Based upon the teachings and suggestions of Freitag (i-fi-f 30-35, 54, and 68) cited by the Examiner (Ans. 4), the Examiner finds "the broadest reasonable interpretation by one of ordinary skill would be that the object representation which is propagated to all clients are all 'instances' of the object." Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds: Taking an object and translating from the server CAD system to the client CAD system is the same as creating a new 'instance' of that object; it is changing something in the original object in 7 Appeal2014-007703 Application 12/262,629 order for it to be usable by the client system. The Examiner interprets the term 'instance' to be a representation of a part which is usable by the second client system. Id. We agree with the Examiner's claim construction. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that a person with ordinary skill in the art would know what the term "instance" means, and that the plain meaning is "an occurrence or case of something." Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellants contend: In the specific case of the computer arts, a simple Internet search in one of the major free search engines shows that the term "instance" in the computer arts is a specific realization of any object. Those of ordinary skill recognize that an "instance" is synonymous with an "object", as they each are a particular realization. The term "instance" emphasizes the distinct identity of the object. The creation of a realized instance is termed "instantiation." These facts are fundamental to computer science and are well known in the art. Thus, any implication that the term "instance" as used in a claim dealing with the computer arts can be read as broadly as the Examiner's Answer pleases would be incorrect. The Examiner's Answer poses the question, "what is an instance." Appellant respectfully submits that this claim term is well known and ubiquitous in the art, with a definition that is likewise well known and understood. Reply Br. 3--4. We find that, while Appellants set forth various arguments as to how the term "instance" should be interpreted, and purport to set forth "well known" definitions of the contested term, Appellants fail to point to any evidence on this record that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading, and also fail to enter any dictionary definition( s) into the record to support 8 Appeal2014-007703 Application 12/262,629 their arguments. On this record, we note Appellants' assertions amount to unsupported attorney argument, and therefore we give them little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139--40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's determination that the cited prior art discloses the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2, 4, 5, and 15-21, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 2. Anticipation Rejection RI of Claims 6, 8-11, 22, and 23 Issue 2 Appellants argue (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 5---6) the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Freitag is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses a computer implemented method that includes, inter alia, the step of "distributing the set of views for the part within a network data processing system in which the plurality of different types of computer aided design systems is present," as recited in claim 6? Analysis Appellants contend, "Freitag is not distributing a set of views ... [but instead allows] collaborative viewing of any of a number of different document formats, not actually distributing a set of views of the part ... 9 Appeal2014-007703 Application 12/262,629 [such that] the Otlice Action assertion is incorrect and Freitag does not disclose [the contested limitation of claim 6]." App. Br. 17. The Examiner responds to Appellants' admission that Freitag allows collaborative viewing, quoted above, by finding "[t]his collaborative viewing is the 'distribution'. If a user on the client end is viewing the instance of the part that was sent, that view was 'distributed' to the user." Ans. 5 (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner's findings. In the Reply Brief, Appellants again argue the Examiner's construction of the term "instance" is incorrect. Reply Br. 6. For the reasons discussed, supra, with respect to Issue 1, we disagree with Appellants' arguments. Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's determination that the cited prior art discloses the disputed limitations of claim 6, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 6, and grouped claims 8-11, 22, and 23, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 3. Anticipation Rejection RI of Claims 12 and 13 Issue 3 Appellants argue (App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 6-7) the Examiner's rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Freitag is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses an apparatus comprising a part management environment that includes, inter alia, "a geometry service configured to create an explicit computer aided 10 Appeal2014-007703 Application 12/262,629 geometry from the request and from data from a single source comprising a geometric master model of a part family," as recited in claim 12? Analysis Appellants contend, "Freitag does not disclose this feature ... [and] does not disclose a 'geometry service' at all." App. Br. 17. In particular, Appellants argue, "Freitag discloses geometric modification of the 3D model using a centralized system, not a master model from which different views are created. No geometry service is present all, only data that allows a user to use their own systems for changing the geometry of a particular part." Id. The Examiner responds to Appellants' argument by stating, "[t]he entirety of the Freitag invention involves a 'geometric service' called 'One Space' wherein users on a network can collaborate on a design model." Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner's findings. We agree with the Examiner because Appellants do not point to any limiting definition of "geometry service" in their Specification or claim that would preclude the Examiner's broader interpretation that the recited "geometry service" reads on Freitag's OneSpace system. In the Reply Brief, Appellants again argue the Examiner's construction of the term "instance" is incorrect. Reply Br. 6. For the reasons discussed, supra, with respect to Issue 1, we disagree with Appellants' arguments. Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's determination that the cited prior art discloses the disputed limitations of claim 12, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the 11 Appeal2014-007703 Application 12/262,629 Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 12, and grouped claim 13, which falls therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 3. Rejection R2 of Claim 14 In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed to obviousness rejection R2 of claim 14 under § 103 (see App. Br. 20), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim. Arguments not made are considered waived. REPLY BRIEF To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-7) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err with respect to anticipation Rejection RI of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 10-13, and 15-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over the cited prior art of record, and we sustain the rejection. (2) The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejection R2 of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combination of record, and we sustain the rejection. 12 Appeal2014-007703 Application 12/262,629 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, and 10-23. 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 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation