International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2020

14262875 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/262,875 04/28/2014 Guo K. Fu CN920130083US1 8245
30449 7590 07/27/2020
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
EXAMINER
ARAQUE JR, GERARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2020 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):
30449@IPLAWUSA.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUO K. FU, DE SHOU KONG, HUA LI,
RUI WANG, and WEN JING WANG

Appeal 2020-001736
Application 14/262,875
Technology Center 3600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 9, and 15. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International
Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001736
Application 14/262,875

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “providing guidance data in response to a
resource access request by using structured role model data.” Spec. 1:4–5.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for providing access to a computer
system to execute a software test on the computer system in
accordance with at least one constraint, said method
comprising:
receiving, by a processor of the computer system, a
request for a first individual within an organization to access
the computer system to execute the software test on the
computer system;
in response to said receiving the request for the first
individual to access the computer system to execute the
software test on the computer system and in response to a
determination that the first individual, a second individual
within the organization, and a third individual within the
organization have a same role in the organization, said
processor ascertaining a first constraint for accessing the
computer system to execute the software test on the computer
system by the first individual, based on a second constraint for
accessing the computer system to execute the software test on
the computer system by the second individual and the third
individual, wherein the second and third individuals are
permitted to access the computer system to execute the software
test on the computer system in accordance with the second
constraint, wherein the second constraint includes, during each
month, only a first and second period of time throughout which
the second and third individuals are respectively permitted to
access the computer system to execute the software test on the
computer system, and wherein the first and second periods of
time have an overlapping period of time that is common to the
first and second periods of time;
said processor aggregating the first and second periods of
time, said aggregating comprising generating role model data
Appeal 2020-001736
Application 14/262,875

3
that identifies the overlapping period of time, wherein the
second constraint permits the second and third individuals to
access the computer system to execute the software test on the
computer system throughout the overlapping period of time,
wherein the first period of time comprises a first interval of
time not comprised by the second period of time, and wherein
the second period of time comprises a second interval of time
not comprised by the first period of time, and wherein said
ascertaining comprises ascertaining that the first constraint is
that during each month the first individual is permitted to
access the computer system to execute the software test on the
computer system only during the overlapping period of time;
said processor providing to the first individual access to
the computer system to execute the software test on the
computer system in accordance with the first constraint; and
said processor executing, as initiated by the first
individual during said access to the computer system by the
first individual, the software test on the computer system in
accordance with the first constraint.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Gupta US 2008/0040674 A1 Feb. 14, 2008
Heaney US 2009/0222522 A1 Sept. 3, 2009
Nickolov US 2009/0276771 A1 Nov. 5, 2009

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 3–8.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Gupta, Heaney, and Nickolov. Final Act. 8–23.
Appeal 2020-001736
Application 14/262,875

4
OPINION
The Written Description Rejection
The Examiner finds claims 1, 9, and 15 fail to comply with the written
description requirement. See Final Act. 3–8; see also Ans. 3–7.
The Examiner focuses on “wherein the second constraint permits the
second and third individuals to access the computer system to execute the
software test on the computer system throughout the overlapping period of
time” and “wherein said ascertaining comprises ascertaining that the first
constraint is that during each month the first individual is permitted to access
the computer system to execute the software test on the computer system
only during the overlapping period of time,” as recited in claim 1. See Final
Act. 4.
Appellant presents the following principal argument: The
Specification provides support for the claim limitations. See Appeal Br. 9–
13 (citing Spec. 11:3–4, 16:6–14, 18:9–18); see also Reply Br. 2–4.
We determine the Examiner erred in finding claims 1, 9, and 15 fail to
comply with the written description requirement.
“[T]he test for sufficiency [of the written description] is whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled
in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Appellant’s Specification discloses the following:
In the process of step 307, ascertaining the at least one
constraint for accessing the resource by the individual is based
on constraints for accessing the resource by one or more other
individuals having a same role in the organization as the
Appeal 2020-001736
Application 14/262,875

5
individual. In one embodiment in the process of step 307, the
one or more other individuals consists of a single individual,
wherein it is ascertained that the at least one constraint for
accessing the resource by the individual is the one or more
constraints for accessing the resource by the single individual.
In one embodiment in the process of step 307, the one or more
other individuals consists of a plurality of other individuals,
wherein it is ascertained that the at least one constraint for
accessing the resource by the individual is an overlapping
portion of the respective constraints for accessing the resource
by the plurality of other individuals.
Spec. 18:9–18 (emphasis added); see also Spec. 16:6–13 (“access system A
to execute software test from 25th to 28th of each month, which is an
overlapping portion of the two previous raw access data”).
We find this disclosure reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art
that the inventors had possession of the claimed subject matter as recited in
claim 1, including
said processor aggregating the first and second periods of
time, said aggregating comprising generating role model data
that identifies the overlapping period of time, wherein the
second constraint permits the second and third individuals to
access the computer system to execute the software test on the
computer system throughout the overlapping period of time,
wherein the first period of time comprises a first interval of
time not comprised by the second period of time, and wherein
the second period of time comprises a second interval of time
not comprised by the first period of time, and wherein said
ascertaining comprises ascertaining that the first constraint is
that during each month the first individual is permitted to
access the computer system to execute the software test on the
computer system only during the overlapping period of time;
(emphasis added), as of the filing date.
Appeal 2020-001736
Application 14/262,875

6
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s written description
rejection of claim 1. For these same reasons, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s written description rejection of claims 9 and 15.2

The Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner finds Gupta, Heaney, and Nickolov teach all limitations
of claim 1. See Final Act. 9–23.
The Examiner finds Gupta teaches
receiving, by a processor of the computer system, a
request for [a] first individual within an organization to access
the computer system [...];
in response to said receiving the request for the first
individual to access the computer system [...] and in response to
a determination that the first individual, a second individual
within the organization, and a third individual within the
organization have a same role in the organization, said
processor ascertaining a first constraint for accessing the
computer system [...] by the first individual [...];
[...] [...];
said processor providing to the first individual [] access
to the computer system [...] in accordance with the first
constraint; and
[...].

2 We recognize the Examiner’s statement that “appellant’s claimed invention
does not agree with what the appellant has stated is their inventive concept
for overcoming a rejection under 35 USC 101.” Ans. 3. However, the claims
on appeal are not currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (see Final Act.
23) and we are not making any determinations with respect to 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 and the claims on appeal. Rather, we have reviewed the Examiner’s
written description rejection in the Final Action, and determine the Examiner
has erred in making the written description rejection.
Appeal 2020-001736
Application 14/262,875

7
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 9–10 (citing Gupta ¶¶ 36, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52,
53, 81, 86, 103, 157, 160, and 177). The Examiner further finds
Gupta discloses a system and method that provides a
plurality of users with access to a central system in order to
perform [] particular tasks in accordance with respective
constraints that correspond to each user. Although Gupta
discloses that the system manages a schedule (see ¶ 122),
Gupta fails to explicitly disclose the actual process of
scheduling in a workflow environment comprised of a plurality
of users using a central system.
Final Act. 12.
The Examiner finds Heaney teaches “it is old and well-known in the
art of scheduling a plurality of users having some relationship with one
another to schedule them together during an overlapping time period” as
encompassed by claim 1. Final Act. 18 (citing Heaney ¶¶ 26, 50, 51, 52, 53,
and 66); see also Final Act. 13–17 (interpreting the claim language). The
Examiner provides a reason to combine Gupta and Heaney. See Final Act.
18–19. The Examiner further finds
The combination of Gupta and Heaney discloses a
system and method for scheduling workflow tasks in an
efficient manner where a plurality of users are accessing a
central system. Although the combination of Gupta and
Heaney teaches a plurality of examples of what tasks can be
performed, the combination of Gupta and Heaney fails to
explicitly teach all possible tasks that can be performed in such
an environment.
Final Act. 19. In particular, the Examiner further finds the combination of
Gupta and Heaney does not teach the specific limitations describing
executing a software test on the computer system. See Final Act. 19–20.
Appeal 2020-001736
Application 14/262,875

8
The Examiner finds the limitations relating to executing a software
test on the computer system are “describing an intended result/use[] of the
invention or, alternatively, the environment in which the claimed invention
is to be practiced in, wherein the intended result/use/environment fails to
further limit or alter the steps, functions, or structure of the claimed
invention.” Final Act. 21. Nonetheless, the Examiner further finds Nickolov
teaches the limitations relating to executing a software test on the computer
system. See Final Act. 21–22 (citing Nickolov ¶¶ 42, 950, 951, 952, 961).
The Examiner provides a reason to combine Nickolov and Gupta and
Heaney. See Final Act. 22–23.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i.
“[T]he preceding citations [(Heaney ¶¶ 26, 50, 51, 52, 53, 66)] to
Hean[e]y disclose that users sharing a same interest [] may be scheduled
together for activities pertaining to the same interest; e.g., visiting the elderly
in convalescent homes [], football [].” Appeal Br. 16–17 (citing Heaney
¶¶ 50, 53).
Hean[e]y does not disclose that execution of the software test
may be initiated by the first individual during each month only
during the overlapping period of time, subject to the second and
third individuals being permitted to access the computer system
to execute the software test on the computer system throughout
the first and second period of time, respectively, wherein the
first and second period of time each comprise the overlapping
period time.
Appeal Br. 17.
Appeal 2020-001736
Application 14/262,875

9
ii.
[T]he preceding citations to Nickolov [(¶¶ 42, 950, 951, 952,
961)], by the Examiner, disclose that a user may run a test
application, but do[] not disclose that execution of the software
test may be initiated by the first individual during each month
only during the overlapping period of time, subject to the
second and third individuals being permitted to access the
computer system to execute the software test on the computer
system throughout the first and second period of time,
respectively, wherein the first and second period of time each
comprise the overlapping period of time.
Appeal Br. 17–18.
In response, the Examiner explains the rejection is based on the
combination of references. See Ans. 8–9 (“[T]he invention is directed
towards scheduling users and the combination of Gupta and Heaney
discloses a system and method for scheduling workflow tasks in an efficient
manner where a plurality of users are accessing a central system and simply
fails to disclose all environments in which scheduling can be used on and,
therefore, Nickolov has been provided to teach this aspect of the
invention.”).
In reply, Appellant argues
the [] alleged disclosure by Gupta and Heaney (i.e., scheduling
workflow tasks in an efficient manner where a plurality of users
are accessing a central system) is not a disclosure that execution
of the software test may be initiated by the first individual
during each month only during the overlapping period of time,
subject to the second and third individuals being permitted to
access the computer system to execute the software test on the
computer system throughout the first and second period of time,
respectively, wherein the first and second period of time each
comprise the overlapping period of time.
Reply Br. 5.
Appeal 2020-001736
Application 14/262,875

10
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We
therefore concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant’s particularized
arguments with respect to the prior art references are directed to the
individual references, while the contested findings are based on the
collective teachings of the references. For this reason and for reasons further
explained immediately below, we do not see any error in the Examiner’s
factual findings disputed by Appellant’s arguments.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (i), this argument does not consider
the teachings of Nickolov. See Appeal Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 5.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), this argument does not consider the
teachings of Gupta and Heaney. See Appeal Br. 17–18. According to the
Examiner’s findings and as further explained in the Examiner’s Answer,
“the invention is directed towards scheduling users and the combination of
Gupta and Heaney discloses a system and method for scheduling workflow
tasks in an efficient manner where a plurality of users are accessing a central
system and simply fails to disclose all environments in which scheduling can
be used on and, therefore, Nickolov has been provided to teach this aspect of
the invention.” Ans. 9.
Appeal 2020-001736
Application 14/262,875

11
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
1. For these same reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 9 and 15.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 9, and 15 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 9, 15 112(a) Written
Description
1, 9, 15
1, 9, 15 103 Gupta, Heaney,
Nickolov
1, 9, 15
Overall
Outcome
1, 9, 15

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED