Ex Parte Day

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 2017

12891493 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017)

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. 12/891,493 09/27/2010 ROUVEN DAY 22135-0064001 1522 32864 7590 03/17/2017 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER MITCHELL, JASON D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2199 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2017 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROUVEN DAY Appeal 2017-000082 Application 12/891,493 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON A. MORGAN, BETH Z. SHAW, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—8, 11—14, 16, 17, and 25. Claims 18— 24 and 26 are withdrawn. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is for business workflow processing in business process modeling notation tools. See Spec. 11. Appeal 2017-000082 Application 12/891,493 Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below: 1. A computer-implemented method for modeling a business process, the method comprising: identifying at least one first business process from a plurality of business processes compatible with at least a first system, the first process less than fully compatible with a particular business process management system modeling at least one second business process compatible with the particular business process management system; receiving a user input requesting modeling of the first business process as a sub-process of the second business process; generating a modeled sub-process modeling the first process as a sub-process of the second business process, the modeled sub process including: a reference, callable from the modeled sub-process, to the first system; and an interface definition defining an interface between the modeled sub-process and the first system; and generating a modeled interface between a model of the second business process and the modeled sub-process, the modeled interface defining inputs from the second business process to the first business process and outputs from the first business process to the second business process. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1—7, 11, 16, 17, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kuester (US 2007/0245297 Al; Oct. 18, 2007). Final Act. 5-9. The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuester and applicant acknowledged prior art techniques. Final Act. 9—10. The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuester and official notice. Final Act. 10. 2 Appeal 2017-000082 Application 12/891,493 The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuester and Fuchs (US 2009/0265684 Al; Oct. 22, 2009). Final Act. 11-12. ANAFYSIS We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding one skilled in the art would have recognized the combination of references teaches or suggests the disputed limitations in claims 1—8, 11—14, 16, 17, and 25. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Final Rejection and Answer (Final Act. 2—10; Ans. 9—15). Claim 1 Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Kuester does not disclose “the first process less than fully compatible with a particular business process management system modeling at least one second business process compatible with the particular business process management system.” App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellant argues that paragraph 28 of Kuester does not appear to discuss aspects of compatibility as in claim 1. App. Br. at 9. The Examiner concludes that “Kuester discloses a first business process modeled in ‘an Event-Driven Process Chains (EPC) notation’ (see e.g. par. [0028]) and a second business process modeled in ‘ WB notation using a WebSphere Business (MB) Modeler’ (see e.g. par. [0028]).” Ans. 9. The Examiner finds that “EPC notation” is different from and is therefore “less than fully compatible with ‘WB notation’ and/or the ‘WebSphere Business (WB) Modeler.’” Id. (citing Kuester 128 (“[a]n EPC business process model is structured differently to a WB model”)). 3 Appeal 2017-000082 Application 12/891,493 We agree with the Examiner that the claim does not recite any specific types or levels of incompatibility. Ans. 10. Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that merely having a first analysis model modelled in WB notation and a first business process modelled in EPC notation does not mean that the first process is less than fully compatible with a particular business process management system. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that the claims do not state that the models or notation are less than fully compatible, just that the first process is less than fully compatible with a business process management system. Id. We are not persuaded by this argument. Appellant provides insufficient evidence proving that “less than fully compatible” is limited in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Kuester’s disclosure. “[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Kuester’s paragraph 28 discloses that the first analysis model process is “less than fully compatible” with a particular business process management system (IBM WebSphere Business), as evidenced by the fact that the “legacy-business-process-model” in EPC is structured differently from a WB model. Kuester 128; see Ans. 9. Kuester’s paragraph 28 explains that an “EPC model is not as strictly hierarchical as a WB model,” whereas a WB Modeler “is a visual process editor that helps build a choreographed business process in five simple steps.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Kuester’s first process is less than fully compatible with a particular business process management system. Kuester therefore discloses “the first process less than 4 Appeal 2017-000082 Application 12/891,493 fully compatible with a particular business process management system modeling at least one second business process compatible with the particular business process management system,” as recited in claim 1. Appellant also argues that merely “partitioning a legacy-business- process-model into sub-processes” is different than, and has not been shown to teach or to suggest, at least “modeling the first process as a sub-process of the second business process” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9. The Examiner finds that Kuester discloses “[t]he first analysis model is . . . defined as a business process model that represents an initial [partitioning] of a legacy-business-process-model into sub-processes.” Ans. 10—11 (citing Kuester 128). The Examiner determines that Kuester’s “first analysis model” corresponds to the claimed “the second business process” and comprises one or more “sub-processes” representing the “legacy- business-process-model” (the first business process). Id. Accordingly, the Examiner finds, Kuester discloses modeling the first business process (i.e. Kuester’s “legacy-business-process-model”) as at least one sub-process (i.e. Kuester’s “sub-processes”) of the second business process (i.e. Kuester’s “first analysis model”). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions because Kuester explains that the first analysis model is an “AS- IS analysis model, which can be defined as a business process model that represents an initial partitioning of a legacy-business-process-model into sub-processes and tasks and that shows the main control flow between them.” Kuester 128. This first analysis model is then modeled using a WB Modeler. Id. As the Examiner explains, the claims do not require that the 5 Appeal 2017-000082 Application 12/891,493 first business process be a pre-existing sub-process of the second process. Ans. 12. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claim 12 Claim 12 recites the method of claim 1, “wherein the first business process is associated with a third party source.” The Examiner finds Kuester discloses the method of claim 1, but Kuester does not explicitly disclose the first business process is associated with a third-party source. Final Act. 10. The Examiner takes official notice that third parties were commonly used in the art to provide software systems. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to apply Kuester’s process to a customer’s system (citing Kuester 124 (“[a] legacy-business-process-model”)) in which at least some of the components were provided by a third party source. Id. The Examiner concludes that “[tjhose of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the source of the components would have been irrelevant and would not have changed the operation of the system.” Id. “To adequately traverse such a finding [of official notice], an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” MPEP § 2144.03(C) (citing 37 CFR 1.111 (b)). An effective traverse must contain adequate information or argument to create, on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying notice of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner offers evidence to support taking of notice that third parties were commonly used in the art to provide software systems. Ans. 14. 6 Appeal 2017-000082 Application 12/891,493 Appellant does not address this evidence. Instead, Appellant merely argues that simply because a third-party may provide a software system it has not been shown to teach or suggest a first business process. App. Br. 11. The Examiner explains, however, that Kuester discloses the first business process as claimed and this business process constitutes a software system. Ans. 15 (citing Kuester | 5). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes, “it would have been obvious for Kuester’s legacy business process to be associated with a third party.” Id. None of Appellant’s arguments contain adequate information to create, on their face, a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying notice of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12. Remaining pending claims With respect to the remaining pending claims, Appellant merely makes general allegations as to the teachings of the cited references, or reiterates substantially the same patentability arguments as those previously discussed for the above claims. See App. Br. 2—12. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s assertions. Consequently, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—8, 11—14, 16, 17, and 25. 7 Appeal 2017-000082 Application 12/891,493 DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1—8, 11—14, 16, 17, and 25. 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 8