Ex Parte Wicker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

11609766 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/609,766 12/12/2006
72058 7590 02/26/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James M. Wicker
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.
58083-857793 (B33 l) 1663
EXAMINER
GYORFI, THOMAS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2435
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatrickstockton.com
j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES M. WICKER, DAVID S. COBLENTZ,
GRANT H. WILLIARD, and MATTHEW J. POLING
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
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. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
dissociating binding information from objects to enable proper rights
management at an object level in a CAD system. (Spec. i-f 7). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining, on a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) station, an
indication of initiation of a particular one of a plurality of operations
to be performed on a graphical representation of a CAD assembly
rendered on the CAD station according to a structure for each part and
binding information that defines a geometric relationship among the
parts;
in response to said indication of initiation of the particular
operation to be performed on the rendered CAD assembly:
dissociating, by a rights client mechanism implemented
on the CAD station, the binding information that defines the
geometric relationship among the plurality of parts of the
rendered CAD assembly to determine geometric relationship
information specific to each part of the rendered CAD
assembly;
identifying, from the geometric relationship information
specific to each part, two or more of the plurality of parts of the
CAD assembly that are affected by the particular operation;
accessing, by the rights client mechanism, respective
rights information associated with the two or more parts of the
CAD assembly that are affected by the particular operation
according to the geometric relationship information for the two
or more parts;
determining, according to the respective rights
information associated with the two or more parts of the CAD
2
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
assembly that are affected by the particular operation, rights of
a particular initiator of the particular operation to perform the
particular operation for each of the two or more parts of the
CAD assembly that are affected by the particular operation,
wherein the rights information associated with each part
indicates specific rights of the particular initiator to perform
each of the plurality of operations on the respective part; and
enforcing, by the rights client mechanism, the determined
rights of the particular initiator of the particular operation to
perform the particular operation on each of the two or more
parts of the CAD assembly that are affected by the particular
operation individually.
The Examiner's Rejections
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bill Burchard et al.,
Inside AutoCAD® 2000 Limited Edition (2000) ("Burchard") and Chase (US
2007/0174281 Al; pub. July 26, 2007).
Claims 6, 11, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Burchard, Chase, and Ginter (US
5,892,900; iss. Apr. 6, 1999).
ANALYSIS
After considering of each of Appellants' arguments, we agree with the
Examiner. We adopt the findings and conclusions as set forth in the
Examiner's Answer and in the action from which this appeal was taken.
(Ans. 2-33; Final Act. 2-15). Our discussions here will be limited to the
following points of emphasis.
3
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
The Prior Art
Burchard is a manual directed to the fifteenth release of AutoCAD, a
conventional CAD system. (Burchard p. 2).
Chase is directed to use of an electronic content management
("ECM") system with a CAD system, whereby the ECM system is used to
manage access to data objects created using a CAD application. (Chase
i-fi-1 4, 7). In particular, Chase describes problems that can occur when a user
does not have read-only access to an object or part, so is unaware of how
that part may be related to other parts, assemblies, or projects. (Chase i1 4).
Chase seeks to implement access control mechanisms to prevent
unauthorized disclosure of data, but which also provide users with
information regarding the existence of an object, part, or model, and/or the
relationships between an inaccessible data object and other data objects that
are accessible to the user. (Chase i19). Chase accomplishes this by
providing a "cloaked" data object, which is inaccessible and unreadable by a
user, but a user is permitted to know exists. (Chase i-f l 0).
Ginter describes a virtual distribution environment ("VDE") that
secures, administers, and audits use of electronic information. (Ginter col. 2,
11. 20-23).
Rejection of claims 1--4, 13, 14, 17, and 18
"dissociating ... "
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Burchard
and Chase teaches or suggests "dissociating, by a rights client mechanism
implemented on the CAD station, the binding information that defines the
geometric relationship among the plurality of parts of the rendered CAD
assembly to determine geometric relationship information specific to each
4
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
part of the rendered CAD assembly," as recited in independent claim 1, and
commensurately recited in independent claims 8, 13, and 17?
In interpreting the disputed limitation, the Examiner relies on
Appellants' Specification, which describes "[ d]issociating objects (parts) of
a CAD assembly refers to recognizing the objects in the assembly and
separating them out to apply object-level rights management." (Ans. 5---6,
citing Spec. i-fi-1 8, 27 (emphasis omitted); see also Final Act. 2-3). The
Examiner notes Appellants' Specification recognizes that a CAD drawing is
a collection of individual parts where each part (including geometric
relationship information) is tracked by the CAD software. (Ans. 2--4, citing
Spec. i-fi-12---6; Ans. 10-12, citing Spec. i-fi-13, 5, 24--25). Therefore, the
Examiner finds the limitation "geometric relationship among the parts"
merely refers to the fact that "the invention knows exactly where in the
drawing each object is in relationship to each other [object]." (Ans. 11 ).
Based on the disclosure in Appellants' Specification, the Examiner finds the
AutoCAD system taught in Burchard, as well as other conventional CAD
systems, already keeps track of the individual objects, including all of their
geometric properties and relationships to other objects (or parts) in the
drawing. (Ans. 6, 10-12; see also Final Act. 7-8, 23-24; see also Spec.
i-fi-1 3-5). The Examiner relies on Chase to teach the rights client mechanism,
which can evaluate whether the user has permission to manipulate the
desired objects. (Ans. 7-9, citing Chase Fig. 1, i-fi-17, 20-25; Final Act. 8).
As one example teaching or suggestion of the disputed limitation, the
Examiner points to the Aligning Objects command described at pages 230-
33 of the "Advanced Geometry Editing" chapter of Burchard. (Final Act. 8;
Ans. 7). The Examiner finds this command, which allows the user to align
5
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
two objects within a drawing to make them fit each other, needs to be able to
recognize the individual parts (objects) in the drawing, the geometry of the
individual objects, and the geometric relationship between the objects so it
can move/rotate/adjust the objects to make them fit each other, as shown in
Burchard in Figure 11.25 at page 231. (Ans. 7).
Appellants contend the Examiner is improperly summarizing
Appellants' claim without considering the claim as a whole, and selectively
referring to paragraphs 8 and 27 of the Specification. (Br. 29-31 ). Rather,
Appellants argue that paragraphs 8 and 2 7 need to be considered in the
context of paragraphs 5, 9, 25-30, and 61. (Id.) Appellants further contend
Burchard's Aligning Objects operation does not teach or suggest the
disputed limitation because the user selects the objects for the ALIGN
operation before the ALIGN operation is performed. (Br. 14--16).
Appellants further contend Chase does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. (Br. 16-17).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because they fail to
proffer sufficient evidence to persuade us of error in the Examiner's
findings. In our review, we find the Examiner has made extensive specific
fact finding with respect to the disputed limitation. (See Final Act. 2-8; Ans.
2-10). On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive
arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 201 l)("we hold that the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.").
Rather, Appellants exhaustively recite the claim limitations and quote from
6
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
the references and Appellants' Specification, but Appellants do not
persuasively explain why the Examiner's findings are in error. (See Br. 14--
17, 29-31).
For example, while Appellants' contend paragraphs 8 and 27 of
Appellants' Specification (as cited by the Examiner) need to be read in the
context of paragraphs 5, 9, 25-30, and 61, Appellants do not provide
sufficient substantive argument as to why the Examiner's interpretation of
the disputed limitation is in error when viewed in the context of those other
paragraphs, nor do Appellants' offer an alternative interpretation. (Br. 29-
31). Rather, Appellants' off er the conclusory statement that " [ c] ontrary to
the Office's assertion, claim 1 clearly recites more than just 'a CAD drawing
is actually comprised of a plurality of parts."' (Br. 31 ).
Further, the Examiner relies on Chapter 11 of Burchard, titled
"Advanced Geometry Editing," which is not limited to the "Aligning
Objects" command, but Appellants focus solely on that one example. (Br.
15-16). With respect to Appellants' arguments on that command, we agree
with the Examiner that the claim language does not preclude one or more
operations occurring before the "operation" of the claims. (Ans. 13-14).
Finally, Appellants attack the Chase and Burchard reforences in
isolation, but do not substantively address the combined teachings and
suggestions of Chase and Burchard, as relied on by the Examiner. That is,
Appellants' arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and
are therefore ineffective to rebut the Exarniner' s prim a fade case of
obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
7
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
Accordingly, \Ve are not persuaded the Examiner e1Ted in finding the
combination of Burchard and Chase teaches or suggests the "dissociating
... "claim Hrnitation.
"identifYing ... "
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Burchard
and Chase teaches or suggests "identifying, from the geometric relationship
information specific to each part, two or more of the plurality of parts of the
CAD assembly that are affected by the particular operation," as recited in
independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 8,
13, and 17?
The Examiner relies in part on the "Quick Select" feature of Burchard,
described at pages 220-22 of Chapter 11, as well as the same interpretation
of the "geometric relationship information among the parts" as discussed
with respect to the "dissociating" limitation above. (Final Act. 8; Ans. 10-
15). The Examiner explains the disputed limitation is taught by
"recognizing, upon issuing the command to ALIGN objects, which objects
were added to the selection set generated by the preceding 'Quick Select'
operation." (Ans. 14). The Examiner finds that where the ALIGN
command corresponds with the claimed "operation," and a user has selected
the set of objects to be aligned via Quick Select (or manual selection),
aligning the objects necessarily requires the user to have the ability to write
the modifications to memory, which is a separate permission from being
able to read the objects. (Ans. 14). The Examiner finds the combination of
Burchard, as modified by Chase, teaches or suggests that once the user
issues the command to align the objects (thus indicating the user wants to
modify the objects), the user permissions for the objects are re-evaluated to
8
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
determine if the user is allowed to modify the parts by aligning the objects as
directed. (Ans. 14--15).
Appellants contend "Burchard does not teach that the properties that
the user can specify via the Quick Select tool include geometric relationship
information for parts of a CAD assembly rendered on a CAD machine, as
recited in Appellants' claim 1." (Br. 18-19). Appellants further contend
Burchard does not teach or suggest that "objects are identified by the 'Quick
Select' tool according to determined geometric relationship information
specific to each part." (Br. 19). Appellants also contend, as previously
discussed above, that the Quick Select tool must be used before a command,
such as the ALIGN command, rather than in response to, and thus after, the
initiation of the operation. (Br. 19-20). Finally, Appellants argue Chase
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. (Br. 20).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, for similar reasons
as discussed above. Once again, we find the Examiner has made extensive
fact finding with respect to this limitation. (Final Act. 8; Ans. 10-15). In
response, Appellants summarize a portion of the Examiner's findings,
describe the disclosure in Burchard, and then assert such teaching does not
meet the claim limitations without explanation as to why. (Br. 17-21; see 37
C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012) ("A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the clairn, ~') Moreover, Appellants' arguments with respect to Burchard are
incommensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim does not require
that the user specify geometric relationship information specific to a
particular part of a CAD assembly rendered on a CAD station. Here again,
Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's interpretation of the
9
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
"geometric relationship among the parts." As previously stated, we agree
with the Examiner that the claim language does not preclude one or more
operations (such as the "Quick Select" operation) occurring before the
"operation" of the claims. (Ans. 13-14). Moreover, Appellants' arguments
attack the Chase and Burchard references in isolation, but do not
substantively address the combined teachings and suggestions of Chase and
Burchard~ as relied on by the Examiner. In other \vords, Appellants do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings or persuasively explain why the
Examiner's findings are in error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Burchard and Chase teaches or suggests the "identifying ... ''
claim limitation.
'' . '' accesszng ...
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Burchard
and Chase teaches or suggests "accessing, by the rights client mechanism,
respective rights information associated with the two or more parts of the
CAD assembly that are affected by the particular operation according to the
geometric relationship information for the two or more parts," as recited in
independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 8,
13, and 17?
The Examiner finds the only thing Burchard lacks is a "rights client
mechanism that can determine, for each object that a user wishes to
manipulate in a given operation, if the user has the permission to manipulate
said object in that manner." (Ans. 16). Therefore, the Examiner relies on
Chase's improvement to a conventional CAD system (such as AutoCAD as
described in Burchard) wherein one can assign rights and permissions to
10
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
individual objects. (Final Act. 8, citing Chase if 26; Ans. 16-19, citing
Chase iii! 24--35). The Examiner notes that in paragraph 4 of its
Specification, Chase teaches that such access rights permissions were well
known in electronic content management systems (ECM) even prior to
Chase's own invention. (Ans. 17; see also Chase if 7, cited at Ans. 17-18,
describing "Often, ECM systems are used to manage access to data objects
created using a CAD application." (emphasis omitted)).
Appellants contend Chase does not teach "that the request specifies
'geometric relationship information for the two or more parts,'" or that its
"ECM system accesses respective rights information associated with the two
or more parts of the CAD assembly that are affected by a particular
operation according to determined geometric relationship information for the
two or more parts." (Br. 23). Appellants argue:
Instead, Chase only teaches that the ECM system receives and
processes a request for access to data objects stored by the
EC!vf system; the request may come from the user directly via
an input device or the request may be generated by the client
application. For example, the request may be submitted by a
user interacting with a browser application configured to
display the data objects managed by the ECM system. (See,
e.g., Chase, paragraphs 11, 22-23, and 39).
(Br. 23).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, which do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings and again attack Chase in
isolation without addressing the combination of Burchard and Chase, as
relied upon by the Examiner. Appellants' contentions essentially ignore the
Examiner's findings with respect to Burchard. Furthermore, Appellants'
devote the bulk of their arguments to describing the Chase reference and
11
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
reciting the claim language, which as set forth above is not considered an
argument for patentability of the claim. (Br. 21-24). As described above,
the Examiner has set forth explicit findings regarding the interpretation of
the "geometric relationship information among the parts," which Appellants
have not persuasively rebutted.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner ened in finding the
combination of Burchard and Chase teaches or suggests the "accessing ... "
claim limitation.
"er?fhrcing . .. "
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Burchard
and Chase teaches or suggests "enforcing, by the rights client mechanism,
the determined rights of the particular initiator of the particular operation to
perform the particular operation on each of the two or more parts of the
CAD assembly that are affected by the particular operation individually," as
recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent
claims 8, 13, and 17?
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 23-36 and Figure 3B of Chase to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. (Final Act. 8-9). Appellants
contend Chase provides a method whereby a read operation is allowed on
objects to which the user does not have read-access by generating and
returning "cloaked" objects to satisfy the request. (Br. 24). According to
Appellants, because Chase returns a "cloaked" object, Chase enables read
access to be performed on an object to which the user does not have read-
access. (Br. 25).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Chase defines a
"cloaked" data object as one that is inaccessible and unreadable by a user,
12
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
but one which a user is permitted to know exists. (Chase if 10). We agree
with the Examiner that returning a cloaked object to a user does not mean
the user has accessed the object. (Ans. 19). Rather, the Examiner finds, and
we agree, the cloaked objects are useless for any subsequent operations the
user may have wished to perform on them, which would require additional
permissions. (Ans. 20).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner en-ed in finding the
combination of Burchard and Chase teaches or suggests the "enfi..1rcing ... "
claim limitation.
Issue 5: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Burchard
and Chase teaches or suggests a rights client mechanism on a CAD station as
recited in as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in
independent claim 8?
Appellants contend Burchard is directed to "AutoCAD 2000"
software, vvhile Chase describes a client application 150 executing on a
cHent computer and an ECJ\!1 system 140 executing on a networked server
computer. (Br. 26, citing Burchard, p. 1; Chase Fig. 1, ~ 21). Accordingly,
Appellants contend the references in combination do not teach or suggest a
rights client mechanism implemented on a CAD station. (Br. 26----2 7; see
also Br. 16----17, 20, 22----23).
\Ve are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, which do not
persuasively address the Examiner's findings. As the Examiner points out,
Figure 3 of Appellants' Specification show three CAD stations (120A,
120B, and 120C), which each include Rights client mechanism (210A,
') 1 OB d 0 1 o· r') l C' ~I) i· ·. ··1°-; ~ 11 2· B d 1 '/') 1') ' I\ 2°) L _ , an L L anc _1'" _ app 1cauon ( L-i'I.., _ !... _ , an _L,....._, • (l-1._ns. L .
13
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
Appellants' Specification, describing Figure 3~ states: "Each CAD station
120 in the networked CAD system may host an instance of the rights client
mechanism 210. In one embodiment, the rights client mechanism 210 mav . ~ .
be hnplemented as a plug-in to CAD application 122 on each CAD station
12(l~' (Spec.~ 39). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
the Specification, we agree with the Examiner that Chase's prefon-ed
embodiment of a single computer workstation which implements all the
functionality of the CAD application and the EC1Y1 component teaches or at
least suggests the disputed limitation, (See Ans. 22, citing Chase Fig, L
element 100, ii~ 2 L 24).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Burchard and Chase teaches or suggests a rights client
mechanism on a CAD station.
The Combination ofBurchard and Chase
Issue 6: Did the Examiner err in combining Burchard and Chase?
<-·
Appellants contend the proposed cornbinatlon of Chase and Burchard
would simply result in Chase's disclosed system. (Br. 27). Appellants aJso
argue the combination of Burchard and Chase does not resu 1t in the method
recited in claim l. (Br. 28).
The Examiner notes that the Chase invention is the improvement that
Appellants seek patent protection on, and AppeHants' Specification admits
the bulk of Appellants' clahn limitations were wen known to be a part of
standard prior art CAD applications, including that disclosed in Burchard .
. I\ ., 2· ') 2· i) (!~lb. L,---- ~· •
14
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because Appellants
have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's findings that the combination
of Burchard and Chase teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Further,
Appellants' argument constitutes little more than attorney argument and a
conclusory statement unsupported by factual evidence. Consequently, we
afford Appellants' argument little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments and conclusory statements that
are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1--4, 13, 14, 17, and 18.
R€Jection (?l Claims 8 and 9
Issue 7: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Burchard
and Chase teaches or suggests a rights management server configured to
store rights information associated with CAD files on a CAD server and one
or more CAD stations each comprising an instance of a CAD application
and an instance of a rights client mechanism, as recited in independent claim
8?
i\ppeHants contend "Burchard describes 'AutoCAD 2000' software
and Chase describes a client application 150 executing on a client computer
and an ECM system 140 executing on a networked server computer (see
Chase, Fig. 1 and paragraph 0021)." (Br. 25).
The Examiner relies on Chase's ECM to teach or suggest the rights
management server. (Final Act. 10, citing Chase i-fi-1 22-3 6). The Examiner
finds Chase permits alternative embodiments where one or more
components of the system may be spread out across a plurality of machines,
15
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
as well as specifically teaching that the ECM system can be on a separate
network server from the one or more CAD stations. (Ans. 25, citing Chase
i-f 21 ). The Examiner further notes the teachings in Burchard support such a
networked arrangement (Ans. 25, citing Burchard pp. 505-511), and such
ECM systems were well-known in the prior art. (Ans. 25, citing Chase i-f 4).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because they do not
persuasively address the Examiner's findings. Rather, Appellants merely
describe the references and recite the claim language without explaining
why the Examiner's findings are in error.
For these reasons, as well as the reasons discussed with respect to
Issues 1---6 above, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 8, and dependent claim 9, not argued separately.
Rejection of Claim 16
Issue 8: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chase
and Burchard teaches or suggests a rights management server that receives
from a rights client mechanism on a particular CAD station of the CAD
system, information specific to a part, identifies a CAD file associated with
the particular part of the CAD assembly from the geometric relationship
information specific to the particular part, and determines respective rights
associated with the pmiicular pmi from rights associated \vith the identified
CAD file, as recited in independent claim 16?
The Examiner relies on the combination of Burchard and Chase to
teach or suggest the disputed limitations, as wen as the rationale for the
rejection of independent claims l and 8. (Final Act 11----12, citing Burchard
Chapter 11) Chase ii~-!- 6, 9, 21, 23----36; Ans. 26----27).
16
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
Appellants contend that while there is '"some discussion in
[paragraphs 30----36 of Chase] of files and relationships between files (see
paragraph 0032), Appellants can find nothing in these paragraphs that
teaches or suggests" the disputed limitations. (Br. 37). Appellants further
argue Burchard "does not teach or suggest that the user can specify via the
Quick Select tool geometric relationship information specific to a particular
pmi of a CAD assembly rendered on a CAD station." (Br. 3 7}
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, which again attack
Chase and Burchard in isolation without addressing the combination, as
relied upon by the Examiner. Moreover, Appellants' arguments with respect
to Burchard are incommensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim
does not require that the user specify geometric relationship information
specific to a particular part of a CAD assembly rendered on a CAD station.
For these reasons, as well as the reasons discussed with respect to
Issues 1-7 above, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 16.
Rejection of Claims 5, 15, and 19
Issue 9: Did the Examiner en- in finding the combination of Burchard
and Chase teaches or suggests enforcing the determined rights of a particular
initiator of a particular operation to perform the particular operation on parts
of the CAD assembly affected by the operation individually by not allowing
the operation to be performed on at least one part for which the initiator does
not have the right to perform the operation, as recited in dependent claims 5,
15, and 19?
17
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 27-29 of Chase, to teach or
suggest the disputed limitation, and particularly, that the cloaked objects of
Chase are inaccessible to the user. (Final Act. 13; see also Ans. 27-28).
Appellants contend Chase allows the particular operation (read access) to be
performed on the object because it generates and provides a "cloaked
version." (Br. 39).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for the same reasons
as discussed above with respect to Issue 4. We agree with the Examiner that
Chase's cloaked objects do not allow the user to perform a particular
operation on them. (See Ans. 27-28).
For these reasons, as well as the reasons discussed with respect to
Issues 1---6 above, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 5, 15, and 19.
Rejection of Claim 10
Appellants do not separately argue dependent claim 10. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim
10 for the reasons set forth above.
Rejection of Claims 7 and 21
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 7
and 21 for similar reasons to those argued with respect to independent claim
16. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed with respect to Issues 1-
8 above, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 7 and 21.
18
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
Rejection of Claim 12
Appellants do not separately argue dependent claim 12. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim
12 for the reasons set forth above.
Rejection of Claims 6 and 20
Issue 10: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Burchard, Chase, and Ginter teaches or suggests:
[W]herein the plurality of operations include an access
operation to access at least one part, a display operation to
display at least one part, a modify operation to modify at least
one part, a print operation to print at least one part, a copy
operation to copy at least one part, and a delete operation to
delete at least one part,
as recited in dependent claims 6 and 20?
The Examiner finds that while Burchard discloses that AutoCAD is
capable of each of the operations listed in claims 6 and 20, it is silent on the
concept of object-based permissions. (Final Act. 14). The Examiner further
finds Chase is limited to the operations of accessing (reading) and modifying
(writing). (Final Act. 14). Therefore, the Examiner relies on Ginter, which
discloses a digital rights management system ("the VDE") intended to
ensure that electronic content is used only in approved ways, to teach or
suggest the disputed limitation. (Final Act. 14--15). The Examiner finds
Ginter teaches that the electronic content may be CAD drawings. (Final
Act. 15, citing Ginter col. 34, 1. 55---col. 35, 1. 5). The Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to integrate the more granular permissions of
19
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
Ginter (display, copy, printing, deleting) into Chase's system to achieve the
predictable improvement of more flexible permissions. (Final Act. 15).
Appellants contend the Examiner has not provided sufficient
reasoning to combine the references (but rather that it is circular reasoning),
or alternatively that the Examiner used hindsight reasoning. (Br. 42).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Here, the Examiner
has provided adequate reasoning (integrating more granular permissions)
with a rational underpinning (in order to achieve the predictable
improvement of more flexible permissions). See Final Act. 15; In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, in the Answer, the Examiner
provides more-detailed reasoning, which the Appellants do not rebut. (See
Ans. 30-32). Furthermore, Appellants do not provide persuasive arguments
or evidence showing the Examiner impermissibly relied on hindsight
reasoning, but merely offer the conclusory assertion that "this statement is
made in hindsight." (Br. 42). Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in concluding that modifying Chase in the manner claimed would have
been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill.
For these reasons, as well as the reasons discussed with respect to
Issues 1---6 above, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 6 and 20.
Rejection of Claim 11
Appellants do not separately argue dependent claim 11. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim
11 for the reasons set forth above.
20
Appeal2014-004447
Application 11/609,766
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 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
21