Ex Parte Yin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2016

11462387 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111462,387 08/04/2006 Jianwen Yin
33438 7590 08/18/2016
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
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.
DC-11369 5189
EXAMINER
CHEEMA, AZAM M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2016 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):
tmunoz@tcchlaw.com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIANWEN YIN and TIMOTHY ABELS
Appeal2015-004087
Application 11/462,387
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a method and
system for reducing effects of cross-profile crosscutting to enable just-in-
Appeal2015-004087
Application 11/462,387
time configuration updates and real-time adaption in a Common Information
Model (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A system for communicating information between a plurality
of information handling systems so as to reduce effects of cross-
profile crosscutting, the system comprising:
a processor comprising physical processing logic;
an aspect semantic analyzer implemented in said physical
processing logic, said aspect semantic analyzer being configured
to implement a common information model (CIM) managed
object format (MOP), wherein said aspect semantic analyzer is
used in a CIM provider and said MOP comprises aspect and
dynamic pattern extensions;
a CIM object manager (CIMOM) comprising an aspect weaver,
wherein said aspect weaver is implemented in said physical
processing logic configured to use said CIM MOP extensions to:
resolve cross-profile association cross-cutting concerns, and;
enable real-time adaptation to changes in the behavior of said
CIM object model; and
an aspect oriented programming (AOP) enabled CIM
management client implemented in said physical processing
logic, said CIM management client being configured to
implement said CIM MOP aspect extensions when performing
AOP operations with said CIM provider; and wherein
the effects of cross-profile crosscutting include inconsistencies
in data populated across different applications.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal2015-004087
Application 11/462,387
Menzies
Coles
Kazakov
US 6,317,748 Bl
US 7,509,395 B2
US 2007 /0180424 Al
REJECTION1
Nov. 13, 2001
Mar. 24, 2009
Aug. 2, 2007
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Menzies, Kazakov, and Coles (Final Act. 4--11).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-20
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Menzies,
Kazakov, and Coles (Br. 3-5). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Menzies, Kazakov, and Coles teaches or suggests
an aspect semantic analyzer implemented in said physical
processing logic, said aspect semantic analyzer being
configured to implement a common information model (CIM)
managed object format (MOP), wherein said aspect semantic
analyzer is used in a CIM provider and said MOP comprises
aspect and dynamic pattern extensions;
a CIM object manager (CIMOM) comprising an aspect weaver,
wherein said aspect weaver is implemented in said physical
processing logic configured to use said CIM MOP extensions
to: resolve cross-profile association cross-cutting concerns,
1 Although not before us, we note claims 1 and 11 are objected to for lack of
antecedent basis for the term "said CIM MOP extensions" (Final Act. 2).
3
Appeal2015-004087
Application 11/462,387
and; enable real-time adaptation to changes in the behavior of
said CIM object model; and
an aspect oriented programming (AOP) enabled CIM
management client implemented in said physical processing
logic, said CIM management client being configured to
implement said CIM MOP aspect extensions when performing
AOP operations with said CIM provider,
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly in independent claim 11?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and 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 the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims
argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follo\'l/S.
Appellants argue the combination of Menzies, Kazakov, and Coles
does not disclose "an aspect semantic analyzer implemented in said physical
processing logic, said aspect semantic analyzer being configured to
implement a common information model (CIM) managed object format
(MOP), wherein said aspect semantic analyzer is used in a CIM provider and
said MOP comprises aspect and dynamic pattern extensions" (Br. 3-5).
Specifically, Appellants argue "Menzies merely provides a definition of a
Common Information Model (CIM)"; however, Menzies is "silent on aspect
and dynamic pattern extensions" (id. at 4).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Menzies teaches "extensions of a CIM that provides a
4
Appeal2015-004087
Application 11/462,387
reference pointer and manage[s] objects" and those objects having "the same
named parent are grouped together so that they will be placed in the same
CIM class" (Ans. 3). We agree with the Examiner's findings that Menzies
teaches the claimed aspect semantic analyzer with the implementation of the
adapted CIM MOP extensions (id.).
Next, Appellants argue the combination of Menzies, Kazakov, and
Coles does not disclose "a CIM object manager (CIMOM) comprising an
aspect weaver, wherein said aspect weaver is implemented in said physical
processing logic configured to use said CIM MOP extensions to: resolve
cross-profile association cross-cutting concerns" (Br. 4). Specifically,
Appellants argue Menzies is "silent on ... cross-cutting concerns" and "an
electronic word search of the text of Menzies ... fails to identify any
discussion of' cross-cutting concerns (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. First, we note that
the argued feature "cross-cutting concerns" is not defined explicitly in
Appellants' Specification; rather, the concerns are merely described as
potentially beneficial if minimized (see Spec. 6:18-20, 7:11-13, 9:5-9).
Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument that the
Examiner's finding that Menzie's determination and grouping of objects
according to classes, when taking a broad, but reasonable interpretation in
light of the Specification, fails to teach resolution of cross-profile association
cross-cutting concerns (Ans. 3).
Appellants additionally argue the combination of Menzies, Kazakov,
and Coles does not disclose "an aspect oriented programming (AOP)
enabled CIM management client implemented in said physical processing
logic, said CIM management client being configured to implement said CIM
5
Appeal2015-004087
Application 11/462,387
MOF aspect extensions when performing AOP operations with said CIM
provider" (Br. 4--5). Specifically, Appellants argue "Kazakov is silent on
the use of aspect-oriented programming as it relates to a Common
Information Model," and Kazakov does not disclose CIM MOP aspect
extensions or the claimed management client (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
Kazakov discloses "alignment of universal and business-specific aspects
through a modeling phase of a development process, as well as aspect-
oriented programming through models" (Ans. 4). We agree with the
Examiner's findings that Kazakov discloses "aspect oriented programming
(AOP) and AOP operations" (id.). Appellants are arguing the references
separately when the rejection has been set forth in combination; one cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). More specifically, the Examiner is relying
on Kazakov's teaching of AOP through models and Menzies' teaching of
CIM MOP aspect extensions (Ans. 4; Final Act. 4--6). The Examiner has
further set forth why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it
obvious to combine the teachings and suggestions of Menzies and Kazakov
(Final Act. 5-6). Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Menzies, Kazakov, and Coles teaches or suggests the
limitations as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited
independent claim 11. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 have not been
6
Appeal2015-004087
Application 11/462,387
argued separately (Br. 5); thus, these claims fall with their respective
independent claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Menzies, Kazakov, and Coles.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Menzies, Kazakov, and Coles 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7