Ex Parte Ding et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 13, 201712815375 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 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. 12/815,375 06/14/2010 Li Ding CA920090003US1 (615) 1260 46320 7590 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, EL 33434 12/15/2017 EXAMINER PAULINO, LENIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2197 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/15/2017 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): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LI DING, DIANA H. LAU, ELENA H. LITANI, JOANNA W. NG, and LEHO NIGUL Appeal 2017-005199 Application 12/815,3751 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants request rehearing of the September 6, 2017 Decision on Appeal (“Decision”) where we affirmed the rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have reconsidered the Decision in light of Appellants’ arguments but, for the reasons given below, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any points made by Appellants in our Decision. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-005199 Application 12/815,375 ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Board erred in affirming the rejection of independent claims 1,11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Keren, Mosterman, and Bean by misapprehending or overlooking Appellants’ argument that Keren’s web service does not teach the limitation “meta model element.” Req. Reh’g 4—6. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention. As stated in the Decision, the Specification does not explicitly define the term “meta model element.” Decision 4. Accordingly, we found Keren’s2 GUI modeling of web services teaches a “meta model element” under a broad but reasonable interpretation of that term. See Decision 4—5. To wit, the Specification provides that an activity element in a model is an example of a “meta model element.” Spec. 135. Keren teaches a model that includes a web service, which is analogous to an activity element due to its functional nature. See Decision 4—5 (citing Keren 112). In the Request for Rehearing, Appellants assert “the term ‘meta model element’ without reference to any dictionary source, enjoys a facial meaning of an element of a meta model. There is no need to further define the foregoing term as the term always has been self defining.” Req. Reh’g 5. This assertion does not show error in the Board’s interpretation of “meta model element.” Appellants further provide a dictionary definition of “web service,” and assert the Board’s comparison of a “web service” to a “meta model element” erroneously relies on an incorrect definition of “web service.” Req. Reh’g 5—6. We disagree. The Board did not change the definition of 2 Keren et al., US 2007/0157096 Al; published July 5, 2007. 2 Appeal 2017-005199 Application 12/815,375 “web service” to fit the claimed “meta model element;” rather, as noted above, the Board found that “meta model element” encompasses an activity element in a model, and that a web service, as disclosed in Keren, meets this broad but reasonable interpretation. See Decision 4—5. Accordingly, we did not misapprehend or overlook Appellants’ Appeal Brief argument that Keren fails to teach a “meta model element.” App. Br. 8. Instead, we found this argument unpersuasive for the reasons stated in the Decision and as clarified above. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Appellants have not persuaded us that we misapprehended or overlooked any issue of fact or law in our Decision. We have granted Appellants’ Request for Rehearing to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision dated September 6, 2017, but we deny Appellants’ request to make any changes therein. 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. § 41.50(f). DENIED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation