Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2013

10857722 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2013)

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.
10/857,722 05/28/2004 Richard D. Dettinger ROC920040042US1 3458
46797 7590 05/23/2013
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
STEVENS, ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD D. DETTINGER, DANIEL P. KOLZ,
RICHARD J. STEVENS, and SHANNON E. WENZEL

___________

Appeal 2010-010935
Application 10/857,722
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and BRYAN F. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010935
Application 10/857,722

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 25, 27, and 28. Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-24, 26 and 29-
37 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to managing execution of workflows,
particularly a computer-implemented method for managing execution of a
data driven multi-step workflow. The method includes receiving input data
for a step of the workflow and performing the step of the workflow on the
input data to obtain a result set. At least one rule is applied to the result set
for determining whether one or more associated conditions are satisfied,
such the rule defines the associated conditions and an associated process. If
the associated conditions are satisfied, the associated process is performed
on the result set. (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 27 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A computer-implemented method for managing
execution of a predefined data driven multi-step workflow,
comprising:
associating a rule with a step of the workflow, wherein the rule
specifies one or more conditions;
receiving input data for the step of the workflow, wherein the
input data specifies a database query to be performed as the step of
workflow;
performing the step of the workflow by executing the database
query to obtain a result set that includes a plurality of data elements
from the database;
prior to performing a next sequential step in the workflow,
evaluating one or more of the plurality of data elements in the result
Appeal 2010-010935
Application 10/857,722

3
set using the one or more conditions specified in the rule associated
with the step of the workflow, wherein one of the conditions specified
by the rule specifies data required in the result set in order to satisfy
the condition;
upon determining that one or more elements in the result set
satisfy the one or more conditions, invoking a process associated with
the rule; and
after invoking the associated process, performing a next
sequential step in the multi-step workflow, wherein a next sequential
step is passed the result set.

27. The method of claim 1, wherein the invoked process is
configured to normalize each data element that satisfies the one or
more conditions.

Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being obvious over Singh (U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2004/0172445 A1; Sept. 2, 2004), Muth (Peter Muth et al., Workflow
History Management in Virtual Enterprises Using a Light-Weight Workflow
Management System, PROC. WORKSHOP ON RES. ISSUES IN DATA
ENGINEERING (RIDE) 148-55 (1999)), Reichert (Manfred Reichert & Peter
Dadam, A Framework for Dynamic Changes in Workflow Management
Systems, PROC. DATABASE & EXPERT SYS. APPLICATIONS (DEXA) 42-48
(1997)), and Beringer (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2004/0119752 A1; June 24, 2004).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 25, and 28
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10-12; see
also Reply Br. 2-4) that the combination of Singh, Muth, Reichert, and
Appeal 2010-010935
Application 10/857,722

4
Beringer would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “evaluating one or more of the plurality of data
elements in the result set using the one or more conditions specified in the
rule . . . one of the conditions specified by the rule specifies data required in
the result set in order to satisfy the condition.”
The Examiner found that the Event-Condition-Action (ECA) rules of
Muth correspond to the limitation “evaluating one or more of the plurality of
data elements in the result set using the one or more conditions specified in
the rule.” (Ans. 7; Muth, p. 150, § 4.) The Examiner further found that the
collaborative block 520 of Beringer, including steps 522 and 524,
corresponds to the limitation “one of the conditions specified by the rule
specifies data required in the result set in order to satisfy the condition.”
(Ans. 8, 13; Beringer, ¶ [0047].) We agree with the Examiner.
Muth relates to workflow management systems. (Abstract.) Muth
explains that “[s]tate charts capture the behavior of a system by specifying
the control flow between activities” such that “[a] transition from state X to
state Y, annotated with an [Event-Condition-Action] ECA rule of the form
E[C]/A, fires if event E occurs and condition C holds.” (P. 150, § 4.) Thus,
Muth teaches the limitation “evaluating one or more of the plurality of data
elements in the result set using the one or more conditions specified in the
rule.”
Beringer relates to “tools that enable a user to link relevant resources
to a sequence of steps of a procedure.” (¶ [0002].) Figure 5 of Beringer
illustrates flow diagrams of guided procedure blocks (¶ [0018]), including a
collaborative block 520 with steps 522 and 524 such that:
Appeal 2010-010935
Application 10/857,722

5
(1) having more than one person involved in executing the
steps, (2) the steps may be executed by two different people, (3)
the output of the first step may be the input for the second step,
and (4) a second step can be a decision such as whether to
proceed or ask for repeating a first step.
(¶ [0047].) Beringer further provides an example of setting up a conference,
including booking rooms and arranging for speeches, such that “[d]ata
coming from an earlier step (for example, selecting speakers, determining
topics for speeches and expected number of listeners) can be used in the
parallel recurring (iterative) blocks as input for the next iterative block.”
(Id.) Beringer also explains that steps can be ruled based or “one where
required processing of the step depends on a circumstance.” (¶ [0035].)
Thus, Beringer teaches the limitation “one of the conditions specified by the
rule specifies data required in the result set in order to satisfy the condition.”
Appellants argue that “nothing in this passage [of Beringer] describes
‘evaluating one or more of the plurality of data elements in the result set
using the one or more conditions specified in the rule.’” (App. Br. 11.)
However, the Examiner cited Muth, rather than Beringer, for teaching the
limitation “evaluating one or more of the plurality of data elements in the
result set using the one or more conditions specified in the rule.” (Ans. 7.)
Appellants also argue that “nothing in this passage [of Beringer]
describes . . . ‘one of the conditions specified by the rule specifies data
required in the result set in order to satisfy the condition’” but “the passage
describes the output of one process simply being used as the input for
another unconditionally.” (App. Br. 11.) Contrary to Appellants’
arguments, Beringer explains that data from an earlier step (e.g., selecting
speakers, determining topics for speeches, expected number of listeners) is
input for a next iterative block. (¶ [0047].) Thus, the input for the next
Appeal 2010-010935
Application 10/857,722

6
iterative block is conditioned upon determining specific data related to the
speech, rather than unconditional.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Singh,
Muth, Reichert, and Beringer would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “evaluating one or more of the
plurality of data elements in the result set using the one or more conditions
specified in the rule . . . one of the conditions specified by the rule specifies
data required in the result set in order to satisfy the condition.”
We are further unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 11-
12) that the combination of Singh, Muth, Reichert, and Beringer would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation
“upon determining that one or more elements in the result set satisfy the one
or more conditions, invoking a process associated with the rule.”
The Examiner found that the execution of a new task X of Reichert
corresponds to the limitation “upon determining that one or more elements
in the result set satisfy the one or more conditions, invoking a process
associated with the rule.” (Ans. 8, 13-14; Reichert, pp. 45-46, § 3.1.) We
agree with the Examiner.
Reichert also relates to workflow management systems. (Abstract.)
Reichert explains that for a graph-based workflow model (i.e., ADEPT),
“[t]he execution semantics of [a new task] X is then as follows: X is
activated as soon as all tasks from Mbefore are either completed or cannot be
triggered anymore, i.e., the tasks defined by Mbefore delay the execution of
X.” (Pp. 45-46, § 3.1.) Because Reichert explains that the new task X is
only executed subject to conditions on Mbefore, Reichert teaches the limitation
Appeal 2010-010935
Application 10/857,722

7
“upon determining that one or more elements in the result set satisfy the one
or more conditions, invoking a process associated with the rule.”
Appellants argue that “nothing [in Reichert] is used to determine that
elements of a result set satisfy one or more conditions of a rule” and “no
process is, in fact, invoked in response to such a determination.” (App.
Br. 12.) However, contrary to Appellants’ argument, Reichert explains that
the new task X is only executed subject to conditions on Mbefore (i.e.,
conditions of a rule).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Singh,
Muth, Reichert, and Beringer would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “upon determining that one or more
elements in the result set satisfy the one or more conditions, invoking a
process associated with the rule.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 25, and 28 depend from claim 1, and
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 25,
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with
respect to independent claim 1.

Dependent Claim 27
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 12-14; see also
Reply Br. 4-6) that the combination of Singh, Muth, Reichert, and Beringer
would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 27, which includes the
limitation “the invoked process is configured to normalize each data element
that satisfies the one or more conditions.”
Appeal 2010-010935
Application 10/857,722

8
The Examiner found that the orthogonal component of the original
mail-order state chart illustrated in Figure 4 of Muth corresponds to the
limitation “the invoked process is configured to normalize each data element
that satisfies the one or more conditions.” (Ans. 11, 14.) In particular, the
Examiner found that “the use of an orthogonal component . . . is suggestive
of Normalization.” (Id.) We do not agree.
Muth explains that “[o]rthogonal components denote the parallel
execution of two state charts that are embedded in the same higher-level
state (where the entire state chart can be viewed as a single top-level state).”
(P. 151, § 4.) Figure 4 of Muth illustrates a transition between states
WebOrder_S and RegisterOrder_S with an “orthogonal component” (i.e., a
parallel execution) of two states HistOrder1_S and HistOrder2_S. State
HistOrder1_S. (P. 154, “Example 2.”)
Although the Examiner cites to Figure 4 of Muth, the Examiner has
provided insufficient evidence that the orthogonal components of Muth,
defined as “the parallel execution of two state charts that are embedded in
the same higher-level state” (p.151, § 4) is “suggestive of Normalization”
(Ans. 11).
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Singh, Muth, Reichert, and Beringer would have rendered obvious
dependent claim 27, which includes the limitation “the invoked process is
configured to normalize each data element that satisfies the one or more
conditions.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2010-010935
Application 10/857,722

9
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 25, and 28 is
affirmed. However, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 27 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc