Ex Parte Andres et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 201713553551 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/553,551 07/19/2012 Markus Andres 2058.751US1 9636 50400 7590 03/20/2017 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER CHUNG, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2017 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW @blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARKUS ANDRES, AYMEN MOUELHI, CONSTANTIN SAVU, EMMANUEL TURCI, HELMUT FIERES, and ROMAN RAPP Appeal 2017-000010 Application 13/553,551 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-000010 Application 13/553,551 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—18, 20-27, and 29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to a system and method for authoring guided procedures. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: a computer processor and a computer storage device configured to: receive a software system from a software vendor, the software system comprising an infrastructure comprising a plurality of business processes and a plurality of guided procedures; maintain the guided procedures in the infrastructure, wherein the guided procedures comprise a user guide, a system guide, or an operator guide comprising step by step instructions relating to assisting a customer of the software vendor in the use, maintenance, and trouble shooting of the software system; and provide a software tool to the customer via a user interface, the software tool relating to the guided procedures; wherein the software tool is configured to permit the customer to create a first guided procedure, to activate the first guided procedure, and to publish the availability of the first guided procedure such that a particular second customer of the software vendor is permitted access to the published first guided procedure. 1 Appellants indicate that SAP SE is the Real Party in Interest. (App. Br. 2). 2 Appeal 2017-000010 Application 13/553,551 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chenthamarakshan Yaseen et al. Reter et al. Rangaswamy et al. Gowel US 2007/0156585 Al US 2007/0226637 Al US 2011/0126123 Al US 2011/0282708 Al US 2012/0072416 Al July 5, 2007 Sept. 27, 2007 May 26, 2011 Nov. 17,2011 Mar. 22, 2012 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1—3, 5—10, 14, 16—18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 27 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yaseen in view of Chenthamarakshan. Claims 4, 15, 22, 25, and 29 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yaseen in view of Chenthamarakshan further in view of Reter. Claim 11 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yaseen in view of Chenthamarakshan. Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yaseen in view of Chenthamarakshan further in view of Rangaswamy. Claim 13 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yaseen in view of Chenthamarakshan further in view of Gowel. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claims 1,16, and 23, Appellants present separate arguments for patentability, and we will address Appellants’ 3 Appeal 2017-000010 Application 13/553,551 arguments thereto. Consequently, we will address Appellants’ arguments in the order set forth in the Appeal Brief. With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner maintains the Yaseen reference teaches and suggests the use of a software tool relating to creating procedures in paragraphs 31, 40, and 45—47. (Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3—6). Appellants contend: As just noted, Yaseen does not disclose permitting a customer to create guided procedures relating to step by step procedures relating to the use, maintenance, and troubleshooting of a software system. Rather, Yaseen only relates to a system that allows an intermediate user to create user interfaces for business tasks. Adding Chenthamarakshan to Yaseen does not cure this shortcoming. A combination of Yaseen and Chentharmarakshan only teaches receiving software from a vendor that can be used in creating user interfaces for business tasks. The combination of Yaseen and Chenthamarakshan does not teach permitting customers of a software vendor to author guided procedures and make them available to other customers of the software vendor. (App. Br. 10). Appellants further contend: Simply put, the leap from Chenthamarakshan and Yasseen [sic] to Appellant’s claimed invention is too great, for there is no teaching in either Yassen [sic] or Chenthamarakshan that customers of a software vendor can author guided procedures and make them available to other customers of the software vendor. (App. Br. 11). We disagree with Appellants’ contention regarding the “leap” from the prior art references to the claimed invention. Appellants repeat the language of the claims and further argue: 4 Appeal 2017-000010 Application 13/553,551 That is, in other words, customers of a software vendor are capable of generating documentation for the software system of the software vendor, and making that customer-generated documentation available to other customers of the software vendor. (Reply Br. 1). We find Appellants’ general argument to be similar to proffering that any user of any software could not provide commentary and instructions and post the instructions on the Internet or any other network for other users of the same product to view and use. We find Appellants’ general contention to be unavailing. Appellants further contend: Appellants respectfully submit that Yaseen’s business process modeling and business task execution are not a disclosure of Appellants’ claimed subject matter of the creation of guided procedures, and that Appellants’ claimed subject matter would not have been obvious, as a whole, in view of Yaseen, either alone or in combination with any other reference. (Reply Br. 2). Appellants further contend that there are “specifically-recited features in Appellants’ claims that are not disclosed” in either reference. (Reply Br. 2). Appellants specifically identify the claimed limitation “to publish the availability of the [customer-generated] guided procedure such that a particular second customer of the software vendor is permitted access to the published [customer-generated] guided procedure.” (Reply Br. 2). We disagree with Appellants because Yaseen discloses a task development tool used by intermediate users which stores guided procedures in the metadata repository 106 which are then usable by an end user. Consequently, these guided procedures are published to the end user in some manner to make them available. (Figure la, ^fl[ 38-43). 5 Appeal 2017-000010 Application 13/553,551 We find Appellants’ arguments directed to the “customer of the software vendor” and other labels used in the claimed invention do not distinguish and differentiate the claimed “system.” Moreover, the claim language “wherein the software tool is configured to permit the customer” does not distinguish or differentiate how an intermediate user would be different than a “customer of the software vendor” in the claimed “system.” Appellants further contend: the Examiner’s Answer conflates Appellants’ recited “customer” (who created the guided procedure) and the “second customer” (who is given access to the customer-generated guided procedure) with the completely different terms “user” and “software developer.” Appellants respectfully submit that such a conflation is improper because every word in a claim must be given meaning, and changing Appellants’ recited “customer” to “user” does not give meaning to the recited term “customer.” Moreover, the alteration of Appellants’ “customer” and “second customer” of the software vendor to any “user” or any “software developer” changes the scope and meaning of the claimed subject matter. This further is improper, and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established by the Examiner. (Reply Br. 3). “In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations . . . [and] limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick 6 Appeal 2017-000010 Application 13/553,551 Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description.”). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). We disagree with Appellants. We further find that Appellants have not identified any specific or express definition of any of the claim terminology to differentiate the claimed “system” from the system disclosed by the combination of the Yaseen and Chenthamarakshan references. As a result, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive to show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims not separately argued. Claim 16 With respect to independent claim 16, Appellants contend that: claim 16 recites that a “software tool is configured to maintain a versioning system for the procedures, such that a particular version of a procedure can be associated with a particular sub system, a particular group or entity, or a particular issue on the system or subsystem by orchestrating a place on a customer side of the infrastructure where the particular version is placed.” 7 Appeal 2017-000010 Application 13/553,551 (App. Br. 11). We note that independent claim 16 is directed to a “process” which merely sets forth two steps of “maintaining ...” and “providing a software tool. . . .” Appellants contend: The disclosure of a business task of applying for a loan or conducting a survey is not a disclosure of different versions of applying for a loan or conducting a survey. Moreover, it is surely not a disclosure of maintaining different versions of applying for a loan or conducting a survey by orchestrating a place on a customer side of an infrastructure where the particular version is placed. (App. Br. 11). Appellants further contend: Contrary to the unsupported assertion on page 21 of the Final Office Action, wherein the Examiner equates a task to a version, Appellant respectfully submits that a task by itself, or a task within a business process, is not a versioning system. Rather it is a task, something to be done, not different versions of a particular procedure. To be sure, Merriam-Webster (www.miriam-webster.com) defines a task as “a piece of work that has been given to someone” and “a job for someone to do,” and defines a version as “a form of something that is different in some way from other forms.” There is simply no equating of version to task in the definition of a task, and no equating of task to version in the definition of version. (App. Br. 12). We find Appellants’ argument repeats the language of the claim and generally contends that the prior art does not meet the claimed invention. (App. Br. 11—12). Furthermore, we find that Appellants have not set forth a date for the proffered definition to evidence an interpretation at the time of the invention, but Appellants generally contend that the “task” of the Yaseen reference is not a claimed “version.” (App. Br. 12). 8 Appeal 2017-000010 Application 13/553,551 We find Appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 16. As discussed supra, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. Additionally, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) requires 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. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Examiner maintains: The most important issue here seems to be the interpretation of “a versioning system.” The current claim language does not express or further define what a “versioning system” is, only stating that “a particular version of a procedure can be associated with a particular sub-system, particular group or entity, or a particular issue.” Yaseen discloses in paragraphs 0031- 0037 instance when procedures may be associated with a particular aspect, for instance, “setting up new user accounts with roles, security and profile information.” This is in line with what the current claim language dictates. (Ans. 5). We agree with the Examiner. Appellants further contend: The disclosure of a business task of applying for a loan or conducting a survey is not a disclosure of different versions of applying for a loan or conducting a survey. Moreover, it is surely not a disclosure of maintaining different versions of applying for a loan or conducting a survey by orchestrating a place on a customer side of an infrastructure where the particular version is placed, as is recited in claim 16. (Reply Br. 4). 9 Appeal 2017-000010 Application 13/553,551 We find Appellants’ argument does not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness regarding the claimed “process” and its two steps of “maintaining . . and “providing . . . Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 16 and its respective dependent claims not separately argued. Claim 23 With regards to independent claim 23, Appellants repeat the language of the claim and generally contend that the relied upon portions of the Yaseen reference do not mention comparing versions of guided procedures for a software system. (App. Br. 12). The Examiner further identifies Yaseen, paragraphs 31—37 to support the comparison of task/work flows. (Ans. 5—6). We find Appellants’ general argument for patentability does not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 23 and its respective dependent claims not separately argued. Dependent Claims 3, 5, 6, 10, and 14 Appellants repeat the language of the claim and generally contend that the claim would not have been obvious over the combination of prior art references. (App. Br. 13—15). The Examiner further identifies paragraphs 31—37 and 44 of the Yaseen reference with regards to the rejection of these dependent claims. Again, we find Appellants’ argument to be no more than repeating the claim language and presenting a general argument for patentability. Because we found Appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive above, we find Appellants’ general contention to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. 10 Appeal 2017-000010 Application 13/553,551 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—18, 20—27, and 29 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-18, 20-27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation