SIEMENS PRODUCT LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2019004435 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

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.
14/707,532 05/08/2015 Steven Robert Jankovich 2015P05291US 6063
45113 7590 03/02/2021
Siemens Corporation
IP Dept - Mail Code INT-244
3850 Quadrangle Blvd
Orlando, FL 32817
EXAMINER
CASILLAS, ROLAND J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2021 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEVEN ROBERT JANKOVICH, and DAREN RHOADES,
____________________

Appeal 2019-004435
Application 14/707,5321
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and ELENI MANTIS
MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1−7, 9−17, 19, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is a CAD system to visually manipulate objects
responsive to inputs through a touch screen. Connected objects will have a
constraint that corresponds to a functional association (controlled via a

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Siemens Product Lifecycle
Management Software Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 8 and 18 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2019-004435
Application 14/707,532

2
software component), in which properties of the object are inherited by
properties of the group. Spec. ¶ 61.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system for object connection breaking comprising:
a display device;
an input device;
at least one processor configured to:
cause the display device to display a plurality of connected objects,
wherein the plurality of connected objects include two-dimensional
(2D) computer-aided design (CAD) objects or three-dimensional
(3D) CAD objects that are directly connected to and abut each other
to form complex 2D or 3D structures, and wherein each connection
includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional association
between the connected objects so that object properties are inherited
between the connected objects and causes motion of one object to
affect the position, shape, or orientation of a connected object;
receive at least one selection input through the input device
representative of a selection of a first one of the connected objects
while a second one of the connected objects remains unselected,
wherein the second object has an initial shape at an initial position,
wherein the first object has an initial position;
responsive to first motion inputs received through the input device
representative of the selected first object being moved with a first
motion that does not have a predetermined motion characteristic,
maintain a connection between the first and second object while
changing positions of the first object and the second object, such
that the second object no longer has one of either the initial shape
or the initial position of the second object, wherein the entire
second object moves with movement of the first object prior to the
connection between the first and second objects being broken so
that the first object and second object together behave as a single
complex structure; and
responsive to second motion inputs received through the input device
representative of the selected first object being moved with a
second motion that has the predetermined motion characteristic,
break the connection between the first and second objects, cause a
current shape and position of the second object to correspond to
Appeal 2019-004435
Application 14/707,532

3
the initial shape and position of the second object while the current
position of the first object does not correspond to the initial
position of the first object, and delete the at least one constraint.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Maunder US 2013/0335339 Al Dec. 19, 2013
Christensen 4,663,616 May 5, 1987
Cleron et al. US 8,601,561 Bl Dec. 3, 2013
Rives et al. US 2011/0258537 Al Oct. 20, 2011

Claims 1, 2, 7, 10−12, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Maunder and Christensen. Final Act. 3.
Claims 3−6 and 13−16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Maunder, Christensen, and Cleron. Final Act. 15.
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Maunder, Christensen, Cleron, and Rives. Final Act. 20.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Feb. 18, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May
16, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 21, 2019) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
Does the combination of Maunder and Christensen teach or suggest
that each connection between objects includes at least one constraint that
acts as a functional association between the connected objects so that object
properties are inherited between the connected objects?
Appeal 2019-004435
Application 14/707,532

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10−12, 17, and 20
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, causing a display device
to display a plurality of connected objects, “wherein each connection
includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional association between
the connected objects so that object properties are inherited between the
connected objects and causes motion of one object to affect the position,
shape, or orientation of a connected object.” The other two independent
claims (11 and 20) recite the same limitation.
The Examiner finds that Maunder “implicitly teaches” that each
connection includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional
association between the connected objects so that object properties are
inherited between the connected objects. Final Act. 4−5; Maunder ¶¶ 36, 65.
The Examiner finds that Maunder teaches that “after creating a subtree (i.e.
complex structure) the nodes within the subtree can be moved as a single
object (i.e. Fig. 6).” Final Act. 5; Maunder ¶ 65.
The Examiner further finds that Christensen teaches that each
connection includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional
association between the connected objects so that object properties are
inherited between the connected objects. Final Act. 5; Christensen col.
1:13−55, col. 3:3−14, col. 6:10−14.
Appellant argues that Maunder does not teach, or “implicitly” teach as
the Examiner finds, a connection that acts as a functional association
between connected object so that object properties are inherited. Appeal Br.
21. Appellant contends that Maunder does not mention any constraint or any
Appeal 2019-004435
Application 14/707,532

5
functional association between object or nodes, and contends that’s Maunder
does not describe anything being inherited between nodes. Appeal Br. 23.
Appellant argues that Christensen similarly fails to teach or suggest
any connection that includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional
association between connected objects so that object properties are inherited.
Appeal Br. 28.
The Examiner, in the Answer, responds that Maunder teaches a
system and interface for displaying and manipulating network topology
graphs. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that the definition of network topology
“carries associations between the nodes of the network (i.e. inherited
properties).” Id. The Examiner finds that the topologies of Maunder “can be
separate structures that can be combined to create a single structure
including all of the properties of both structures (i.e. inheriting physical
and/or logical association information with the connected nodes).” Id.
With respect to Christensen, the Examiner responds that the reference
teaches a “sticky” attribute that is “transferred to all connected objects . . . .
If one of the object (sic) contains this ‘sticky’ attribute and is connected to
another object not containing this attribute, the ‘sticky’ attribute is
inherited.” Ans. 6.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Maunder teaches a
connection that includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional
association between connected objects so that object properties are inherited.
Rather, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to identify a
teaching of this limitation within Maunder. Turning to the portions of
Maunder specifically cited by the Examiner, paragraph 36 concerns
generating a network topology graph as a result of user input. While
Appeal 2019-004435
Application 14/707,532

6
Maunder teaches that selected nodes may be manipulated on the graph as a
unified set of nodes, we agree with Appellant that Maunder does not disclose
a “functional association” between connected objects and does not disclose
any inheritance of object properties. Reply Br. 15. Paragraph 65 of Maunder
discloses only Maunder’s interface for connecting a node to other nodes, and
does not supply the teachings missing from paragraph 36. The Examiner’s
Answer states that Maunder teaches that its disclosed topology carries
inherited properties between nodes, but cites to no evidence in Maunder that
the reference actually teaches this limitation. Ans. 5. Appellant argues, and
we agree, that the Wikipedia article cited by the Examiner in general support
of his findings does not teach or suggest anything concerning inherited
properties between nodes. Reply Br. 14.
We also do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Christensen
teaches a connection that includes at least one constraint that acts as a
functional association between connected objects so that object properties
are inherited. As mentioned supra, the Examiner cites to columns 1, 3, and 6
of Christensen. The section of column 1 cited describes only the prior art
and the problem to be solved. Column 3 of Christensen describes assigning
the “sticky” attribute to a box and moving that box to a new location.
Column 6 of Christensen further describes the “sticky” attribute. As with
Maunder, however, the Examiner does not cite to any evidence within
Christensen indicating that Christensen actually teaches object properties
being inherited between connected objects. Ans. 6. We agree with
Appellant’s argument that “[i]n every case, [the] Christensen ‘sticky
attribute’ must be set by the user,” and that there is no teaching or suggestion
Appeal 2019-004435
Application 14/707,532

7
that the attribute is in any inherited or transferred between objects. Reply Br.
21.
Because we find that neither Maunder nor Christensen teach or
suggest that each connection includes at least one constraint that acts as a
functional association between connected objects so that object properties
are inherited between connected objects, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 10−12, 17, and 20.
Claims 3−6 and 13−16
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 from
which claims 3−6 and 13−16 respectively depend. The Examiner does not
point to teaching or suggestion in Cleron that would cure the deficiencies of
Maunder and Christensen identified supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 3−6 and 13−16, for the same
reasons expressed with respect to claims 1 and 11 supra.
Claims 9 and 19
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 from
which claims 9 and 19 respectively depend. The Examiner does not point to
teaching or suggestion in Cleron or Rives that would cure the deficiencies of
Maunder and Christensen identified supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 9 and 19, for the same reasons
expressed with respect to claims 1 and 11 supra.

CONCLUSIONS
The combination of Maunder and Christensen does not teach or
suggest that each connection between objects includes at least one constraint
Appeal 2019-004435
Application 14/707,532

8
that acts as a functional association between the connected objects so that
object properties are inherited between the connected objects.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7,
10−12, 17, 20
103 Maunder,
Christensen
1, 2, 7,
10−12, 17, 20
3−6, 13−16 103 Maunder,
Christensen,
Cleron
3−6, 13−16
9, 19 103 Maunder,
Christensen,
Cleron, Rives
9, 19
Overall
Outcome

1−7, 9−17,
19, 20

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1−7, 9−17, 19, and 20 is
reversed.

REVERSED