Ex Parte Schaad

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2014

11335488 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREAS SCHAAD
____________

Appeal 2011-012613
Application 11/335,488
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012613
Application 11/335,488

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13-16, 20-24, and 27-30 which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a system to manage a
workflow. (Spec. [0004]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system including:
a non-transitory memory to store a workflow model having at
least one version, the at least one version being executable by an
execution engine as a specific workflow instance, the
specific workflow instance associated with context information, the
context information comprising model information identifying the
workflow model and version information identifying the at least one
version of the workflow model; and
a processor to implement a workflow data monitor to receive
and associate audit information with an object processed by an
execution engine in terms of the specific instance of the
workflow model, the audit information comprising the context
information and execution information, the workflow data monitor
further to receive an audit request with respect to the object processed
in terms of a specific workflow instance and, responsive to receipt of
the audit request with respect to the object is to:
retrieve the associated audit information associated with the
object;
Appeal 2011-012613
Application 11/335,488

3
retrieve further audit information from at least one of the
workflow model and the execution engine; and
compare the associated audit information with the further audit
information.

THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:1
Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13-16, 20-24, and 27-30 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Duffy (U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2008/0216147 A1, pub. Sept. 4, 2008) and Groth (Paul
Groth et al., A Protocol for Recording Provenance in Service-Oriented
Grids, in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Principles of
Distributed Systems (OPODIS’04), vol. 3544, pp.124-139, Grenoble, France
(2005)).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find facts in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a
preponderance of the evidence2.

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues at pages 15-18 of the Appeal Brief that the
rejection of claim 1 is improper because the elements of following claim
limitations are not shown in the prior art:

1 The rejection of claims 15, 16, 20-24, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has
been withdrawn (Ans. 4, 11).
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2011-012613
Application 11/335,488

4
[T]he workflow data monitor further to receive an audit request
with respect to the object processed in terms of a specific
workflow instance and, responsive to receipt of the audit request
with respect to the object is to:

retrieve the associated audit information associated with the
object;

retrieve further audit information from at least one of the
workflow model and the execution engine; and

compare the associated audit information with the further
audit information.

(Claim 1) (emphasis added).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that cited claim limitations
are found in Duffy at paragraphs [0049], [0052], and [0094]-[0096] (Ans. 5-
6, 10-16).
We agree with the Appellant. Here in part, claim 1 requires that the
workflow data monitor receive “an audit request with respect to the object
processed in terms of a specific workflow instance” (emphasis added). Thus,
the claim requires in part an audit request for an object that is processed
terms of a specific instance of the workflow model. Since the object is
processed in terms of the specific instance of the workflow model the two
elements are each separately claimed in addition to the audit. The Answer at
page 14 equates the “workflow instance certificate with the object
processed” but the claim requires a separate object processed in terms of the
specific instance of the workflow model in addition to the audit.
Here, the citation to Duffy at paragraphs [0049], [0052], and [0094]-
[0096] fails to show the claimed requirement for an audit request for an
Appeal 2011-012613
Application 11/335,488

5
object that is processed in terms of a specific instance of the workflow
model. For example, Duffy at paragraph [0094] discloses checking
compliance with a workflow instance certificate, but nothing of an audit
request with respect to a separate object processed. The remaining cited
portions of Duffy fail to disclose the cited claim limitation as well and the
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not sustained.
The remaining claims contain a similar limitation and the rejection of
these claims is not sustained for the same reasons given above.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13-16, 20-24, and
27-30 is reversed.

REVERSED
llw