Ex Parte Ding et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2017

12815375 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 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.
12/815,375 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