11787707 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2014)

Ex Parte Rits

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 7, 2014

11787707 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MAARTEN E. RITS ____________ Appeal 2011-012161 Application 11/787,707 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012161 Application 11/787,707 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-14. Appellant appeals from the final rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION This invention relates to “optimising access control for a workflow that is to be executed by one user who is selected beforehand.” (Spec. ¶ 0002). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter (emphases added) (steps lettered): 1. A computer-implemented method for executing a workflow, wherein the workflow comprises a set of individual activities, the individual activities executable according to alternative execution paths, the method comprising: [a] computing a global workflow access type and a partial workflow access type, wherein [a1] the global workflow access type specifies a right to execute all of the individual activities belonging to the workflow, and [a2] the partial workflow access type specifies a right to execute a particular path of the alternative execution paths in the workflow, so that the workflow is executable along the particular path; [b] receiving a request from a user to execute the workflow; [c] executing an access control based on a workflow access type assigned to the user, wherein Appeal 2011-012161 Application 11/787,707 3 [c1] if the user is assigned the global workflow access type, authorizing the user to execute all of the individual activities belonging to the workflow, [c2] if the user is assigned the partial workflow access type, authorizing the user to access the particular path, and [c3] if the user is not assigned the global workflow access type or the partial workflow access type, rejecting the user before executing the workflow. REJECTIONS R1. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over Sabrina De Capitani di Vimercati et al., Access Control: Principles and Solutions, 33 SOFTWARE PRAC. & EXPERIENCE 397 (2003) [hereinafter Capitani], U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0039627 A1 (Feb. 26, 2004) [hereinafter Palms], and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0149714 A1 (Aug. 7, 2003) [hereinafter Casati]. R2. Claims 3, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capitani, Palms, Casati, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0044197 A1 (Feb. 24, 2005) [hereinafter Lai]. R3. Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capitani, Palms, Casati, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0027881 A1 (Feb. 1, 2007) [hereinafter Srivastava]. Appeal 2011-012161 Application 11/787,707 4 GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 12-14 on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).1 We address the rejections R2 and R3 separately, infra. ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellant’s contentions regarding the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of the claims. We 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 set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellant’s Appeal Brief. (Ans. 12-14). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below. R1. A. Regarding the claim 1 limitation [a2], “the partial workflow access type specifies a right to execute a particular path of the alternative execution paths in the workflow, so that the workflow is executable along the particular path” (emphasis added), Appellant contends, Casati only assigns tasks, cases, processes, and/or activities to agents according to a role and not a right to execute a particular path as recited by Appellant’s claimed elements. The Examiner 1 Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on January 12, 2011. The date of filing of the Notice of Appeal determines which set of rules applies to an ex parte appeal. If a notice of appeal is filed prior to January 23, 2012, then the 2004 version of the Board Rules last published in the 2011 edition of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 C.F.R. § 41.1 et seq.) applies to the appeal. See also MPEP (Rev. 8, July 2010). Appeal 2011-012161 Application 11/787,707 5 further admitted that Casati assigns tasks instead of paths to users who are allowed to “perform certain tasks and depending on the task is will be routed to certain person.” Answer at 13 (emphasis added). (Reply Br. 2). Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive. Appellant’s contention that assigning a task would not have taught or suggested “a right to execute a particular path” (emphasis added) is not persuasive because Appellant’s contention is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. (Id.). Specifically, Appellant’s claims do not cite or require that a “path” is two or more activities, and therefore a path can include one activity or task. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 1 limitation [a2] “. . . the workflow is executable along the particular path” (emphasis added), includes a particular path of one activity because the workflow is executable along the particular path of one activity. Moreover, Appellant fails to cite a more narrow definition of “particular path” in the Specification.2 Furthermore, we conclude Casati’s assignment of the task of Medical Examination 304 would have taught or suggested the “right to execute a particular path” of series of activities because a medical examination is at least a series of activities or subtasks, such as: (1) sign in patient, (2) medical 2 Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently 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.”). Appeal 2011-012161 Application 11/787,707 6 test 1, (3) sign out patient, etc.. (Casati Fig. 3 (304); Ans. 13 (citing Casati Fig. 3)). Moreover, Medical Examination 304 is an alternate path that the workflow in Figure 3 can execute along. As such, we find Casati’s assignment of the task of the Medical Examination 304 would have taught or suggested the limitation at issue. B. Regarding the claim 1 limitation [c2], “if the user is assigned the partial workflow access type, authorizing the user to access the particular path” (emphases added), Appellant’s contentions are premised on Appellant’s claim interpretation that “a path includes a series of tasks” (Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added)). Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive. As discussed above, Appellant’s claims do not recite or require that a “path” is two or more tasks or activities, and therefore we conclude a path can include one activity or task. For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2, 4-6, and 12-14, which fall therewith. R2. AND R3. Regarding the claims rejected under rejections R2 and R3, Appellant argues these claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency from parent claim 1. (App. Br. 14-15). However, we find no deficiencies in the rejection R1 of parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections R2 and R3. Appeal 2011-012161 Application 11/787,707 7 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections R1-R3 of claims 1-14 under § 103. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED bab