Ex Parte Rothermel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 5, 2013

11027578 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GUNTHER ROTHERMEL and DIRK WODTKE
____________________

Appeal 2011-007867
Application 11/027,578
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-007867
Application 11/027,578

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 2-12 and 14-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.1

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to the arts of business activity
monitoring systems, and generating alerts directed at participants as events
to be resolved occur (Spec., para. [0014]).
Claim 3, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
3. In a computer system wherein messages are
transferred between participants, at least some of
which are human users of the computer system
using the computer system in furtherance of work
projects, and wherein a workflow system handles
task based operations in a structured environment,
the computer system further comprising at least
one monitored operations system that generates
alerts to notify participants of events within the at
least one monitored operations system, a computer
implemented method of handling alerts in a
structured manner comprising:
transmitting by the computer system, to a
determined participant, a message comprising a

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed September 28, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 27,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 27, 2010).
Appeal 2011-007867
Application 11/027,578

3
first alert that a particular first event occurred,
wherein the first event is determinable from at
least one of the state of the computer system, the
computer system’s data or external data available
to the computer system, wherein an alert rule
indicates that the determined participant is to be
alerted with the message when the particular first
event occurs;
initiating a logging of event resolution
responses by the determined participant in
response to the first event to form an event
resolution log;
storing, by the computer system, the event
resolution log for use in informing a future
determined participant, via the workflow system,
as to a possible event resolution process when the
future determined participant encounters a second
alert of a second event wherein the second alert is
similar to the first alert, the second event is similar
to the first event or both, the possible event
resolution process depending, at least in part, on
the event resolution log for the first event;
ending the event resolution log when the
determined participant signals to the computer
system a resolution of the first event;
generating by the computer system a
workflow process template from the event
resolution log, the workflow process template
comprising at least one workflow item; and
storing by the computer system the
workflow process template in the workflow system
in association with a category identifier associated
with the first event.

Appeal 2011-007867
Application 11/027,578

4
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 2-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Beaven (US 2004/0186762 A1, pub. Sep. 23, 2004).

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 3 and dependent claims 2, 4-11, and 19-21
We are persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’
argument that Beaven fails to disclose “generating by the computer system a
workflow process template from the event resolution log,” as recited by
independent claim 3. (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 2-3). The Examiner maintains
that the rejection is proper, and cites paragraphs [0168] – [0169] of Beaven
as disclosing this feature. Specifically, the Examiner relies on the “Add
SubProject” feature disclosed in Beaven to address this limitation. (Ans. 25,
citing Beaven at para. [0169]).
Beaven describes a process in paragraph [0168] for changing the
position of a particular goal in a hierarchy. In paragraph [0169], Beaven
describes that when a user “wants to add a new subordinate initiative with
which the user is working, the user can use the ‘add’ button to view New
Goal screen (see FIG. 7) and enter information about the new initiative
using the standard template.” Beaven describes an event log table 4223
(see, e.g., Beaven, para. [0232]), but the Examiner fails to explain how this
event log table generates the standard template used to add the new
subordinate initiative.
Rather than describing the use of the event log table to generate a
standard template, the cited portion of Beaven describes features which
Appeal 2011-007867
Application 11/027,578

5
define a relationship between at least two goals or initiatives in a hierarchy.
See Fig. 3. Paragraphs [0168] – [0169] of Beaven, thus, fail to disclose
“generating by the computer system a workflow process template from the
event resolution log,” as recited in independent claim 3.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 as
anticipated by Beaven. We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2, 4-11, and 19-21.
Independent claims 12 and 22 and dependent claims 14-18
Independent claims 12 and 22 include language substantially similar
to claim 3. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
12 and 22 as anticipated by Beaven for the same reasons as set forth above
with respect to claim 3. We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 14-18, which depend from claim 12, for these reasons.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-12 and 14-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh