Ex Parte Weiss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2016

12245792 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/245,792 10/06/2008
62730 7590 06/27/2016
SAP SE
3410 HILL VIEW A VENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
KLAUS WEISS
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.
2008P00293US 4826
EXAMINER
GILKEY, CARRIE STRODER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2016 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):
APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM
GIPinhouse@sap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KLAUS WEISS, JUERGEN KIND, HANS-DIETER LOEW,
FRIEDHELM MA USE, DAGMAR MA YER, LOTHAR RIEGER,
and JANET DOROTHY SALMON
Appeal2013-002516 1
Application 12/245,7922
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134
and 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed May 21,
2012), and the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 20,
2011) and Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 6, 2012).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP AG (Br. 3).
Appeal2013-002516
Application 12/245,792
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to a computer-implemented method,
system, and non-transitory machine readable medium for "electronic data
processing and more particularly to controlling complex process execution."
(Spec. ii 1 ).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer implemented method to control a plurality of
processes in a computer system environment, the method
compnsmg:
creating a hierarchy in a local computer system, the
hierarchy determining a company structure of a plurality of
organizational units on different levels involved in the plurality
of processes;
creating a process worklist in the local computer system,
the process worklist including a plurality of worktasks grouped
in accordance with the created hierarchy, the worklist including
one or more of a worktask internal to the local computer system
and a worktask external to the local computer system;
generating by a microprocessor in the local computer
system a plurality of electronic worklist views based on the
process worklist, wherein each of the plurality of worklist
views is accessible by a separate predefined group of computer
system users and includes a corresponding subset of the
plurality of worktasks included in the worklist organized in
accordance with the created hierarchy;
initiating from one of the plurality of worklist views an
execution of an internal worktask on the local computer system;
and
initiating from one of the plurality of worklist views an
execution of an external worktask on an external computer
system via a computer communication interface.
(Br., Claims App.)
2
Appeal2013-002516
Application 12/245,792
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and the Appellants appeal, the following
rejections:
I. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, 16, 20, and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schmidt (US
2007 /0185754 Al, pub. Aug. 9, 2007).
II. Claims 3-5, 8-14, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schmidt and Fiszman
(US 6, 115,646, iss. Sept. 5, 2000).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 6, and 7
Appellants argue that Schmidt's system of assignments does not meet
the limitation "creating a hierarchy in a local computer system, the hierarchy
determining a company structure of a plurality of organizational units on
different levels involved in the plurality of processes," as recited by
independent claim 1 (see Br. 8-10). Appellants advance several arguments
with respect thereto.
First, Appellants contend that the groups or folders which receive
assignments do not correspond to "a plurality of organizational units"
because the groups or folders correspond to resources (Br. 9). However, the
Examiner correctly finds that the task folders include "human workers."
(Final Act. 3; Ans. 3--4 (citing Schmidt (i-fi-f 48-50)).
Second, Appellants contend that the groups are not on different levels
(Br. 9-10). However, the Examiner relies on the relationship between the
supervisor who make the assignments and the human workers who perform
3
Appeal2013-002516
Application 12/245,792
the assignments for the recited "hierarchy" (Final Act. 3). In particular, the
Examiner finds that Schmidt (i-fi-f 48, 50) discloses that master agent 410
assigns tasks to task folders 103, 106, 108, and that "tank group A" has a
task executor which performs the task (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3--4). We agree.
Indeed, master agent 410 makes an assignment to the folder to which tank
group A is assigned based on the availability of tank group A for the task
(see Schmidt i1 50). The task executors are production machines, human
workers, supervisor users, or other resources (Schmidt i1 49). We agree with
the Examiner that the relationship between master agent 410 and the task
executor, or between a supervisor and a human worker who performs a task,
is hierarchical in nature. See also Schmidt, Fig. 5.
Third, Appellants argue that the supervisors "control the processes"
but are not "involved in controlled processes" (Br. 9). We are unpersuaded
by this argument for several reasons. Although Appellants may intend to
argue a distinction in the disclosed invention, it is not one that Appellants
have written into the claim language before us. Further, master agent 410
may perform tasks itself (Schmidt i1 48). Moreover, we agree with the
Examiner's determination that directing processes is "involvement" in the
processes (see Ans. 4). Indeed, Appellants acknowledge elsewhere that
supervisors may create and delete folders and may dynamically assign
human users to different folders (Br. 9 (citing Schmidt i1i132, 34, 48)).
Appellants further argue that Schmidt does not disclose "creating a
process worklist in the local computer system, the process worklist including
a plurality of worktasks grouped in accordance with the created hierarchy"
(Br. 9-10). In particular, Appellants argue that the folders in Schmidt
4
Appeal2013-002516
Application 12/245,792
correspond to resources rather than organized groups (Br. 10). However, as
set forth above, folders may include human workers.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claim 1. Although placed under a
different heading, Appellants do not argue the patentability of claims 2, 6,
and 7 separately from that of independent claim 1. We, therefore, sustain
the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 2, 6, and 7, for
similar reasons as for claim 1.
Independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16, 20, and 21
Appellants do not argue the patentability of independent claim 15
separately from that of independent claim 1. We sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ofclaim 15, for similar reasons as for
claim 1.
Although placed under a different heading, Appellants do not argue
the patentability of claims 16, 20, and 21 separately from independent
claim 15, from which they each depend. We sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 16, 20, and 21, for the same
reasons as for independent claim 15.
Independent claim 8 and claims 9-14
Independent claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schmidt and Fiszman. Appellants' arguments made with
respect to the patentability of independent claim 8 are similar to those made
with respect to independent claim 1 (see Br. 10-11 ), and we are unpersuaded
5
Appeal2013-002516
Application 12/245,792
for similar reasons. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 8.
Appellants do not argue the patentability of claims 9-14 separately
from that of independent claim 8, from which they each depend. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 9-14, for similar reasons as for independent claim 8.
Dependent claims 3-5 and 17-19
Claims 3-5 and 17-19, which depend respectively from claims 1 and
15, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Schmidt and Fiszman. Appellants assert that Fiszman fails to remedy the
argued deficiency in the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of
independent claims 1 and 15 (Br. 10). Having found no deficiency therein,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3-5
and 17-19, for similar reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, 16, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 3-5, 8-14, and 17-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6