Ex Parte Dumitrescu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 2016

13036147 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/036,147 02/28/2011 50447 7590 04/28/2016 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP 1526 SPRUCE STREET SUITE 302 BOULDER, CO 80302 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tiberiu Dumitrescu 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 4-03 l_FN201l01561 4362 EXAMINER BARNES, TED W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/28/2016 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@dbflaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIBERIU DUMITRESCU, MICHAEL RAINES, and DANIEL HUFNAGEL Appeal2014-008034 Application 13/036,147 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 1 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider whether the claims comply with 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355-56 (2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F. 3d 1366, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 because they are unpatentable mental processes (i.e., abstract ideas)). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Â§ 1213.02. Appeal2014-008034 Application 13/036,147 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to print job management. See generally Spec. i-f 1. Claim 15 is exemplary: 15. A system comprising: a resource manager that identifies a first workflow comprising a first ordered set of print shop activities for a print job, directs resources of a print shop to perform the activities of the first workflow, detects a triggering event indicating a changed condition for the print shop, and halts processing of the first workflow responsive to detecting the triggering event; a memory that stores rules that describe logical relationships of activities at the print shop; and a workflow generator that accesses the memory to identify rules defined for the print job, identifies activities available at the print shop, and generates a second workflow for the print job based on the changed condition indicated by the triggering event, the rules defined for the print job, the available activities, and a job ticket of the print job, wherein the second workflow comprises a second ordered set of print shop activities, wherein the resource manager further directs the resources of the print shop to perform the activities of the second workflow. References and Rejections Duke et al. US 6,573,910 Bl Goel et al. US 2005/0248804 Al Conescu et al. US 2009/0281862 Al Dumitrescu et al. US 2012/0218590 Al June 3, 2003 Nov. 10, 2005 Nov. 12, 2009 Aug. 30, 2012 Claims 1--4, 7-11, and 14--18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conescu and Goel. 2 Appeal2014-008034 Application 13/036,147 Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conescu, Goel, and Duke. ANALYSIS The Obviousness Rejection We disagree with Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6-11 ), and agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions on pages 13-16 of the Answer as our own. Therefore, we limit our discussion to the following points for emphasis. On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 15. First, Appellants contend Conescu and Goel do not collectively teach "a workflow generator that ... generates a second workflow for the print job based on the changed condition indicated by the triggering event, the rules defined for the print job, the available activities, and a job ticket of the print job," as recited in claim 15. See 1A .. pp. Br. 6-10. In particular, Appellants contend Conescu's paragraphs 34, 37, 41, and 43 merely "discuss generating job tickets for print job" and the claimed workflow "is substantially different from the scheduling system of Conescu ... at i-f [0041]." App. Br. 8-9. Appellants assert Conescu' s paragraph 62 teaches "workflows ... are generated based on only two criteria: the available activities and the input of a user" and paragraph 12 does not teach "rules defined for a print job." App. Br. 7. Appellants argue the cited prior art fails to teach the general concept of automated workflow required by the claim. See App. Br. 8, 11. Further, Appellants assert it would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art to "modify their systems to generate workflows as done by the system of claim 3 Appeal2014-008034 Application 13/036,147 15, at least because Goel does not mention rules and because in Conescu, the rules are used to generate a job ticket." App. Br. 8. Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner provides findings showing Conescu and Goel collectively teach the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 13-16. For example, the Examiner explains the claimed workflow generator is reasonably mapped to Conescu'sjob controller 306, and Conescu teaches generating workflow based on things such as changed conditions and a job ticket. See Ans. 13-14. Further, the Examiner cites Conescu's paragraph 34---not paragraph 12-for teaching the rules defined for the customer, and Conescu's paragraph 54 for teaching available activities. See Ans. 15. The Examiner further explains that the claim does not require an "automatic" workflow generator, as contended by Appellants. Appellants fail to adequately respond to such findings and therefore, fail to show specific fault in the Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art."). Further, contrary to Appellants' argument, Conescu's paragraph 62 discusses an example not cited by the Examiner, and does not state "workflows ... are generated based on only two criteria: the available activities and the input of a user" (App. Br. 7), as contended by Appellants. See Conescu i-f 62. Similarly, Conescu's paragraphs 34, 37, 41, and 43 do not merely "discuss generating job tickets for print job" (App. Br. 8), as argued by Appellants. See Conescu i-fi-134, 37, 41, 43. In addition, Appellants' argument about an automatic work flow generator is not 4 Appeal2014-008034 Application 13/036,147 commensurate with the scope of claim 15. And Appellants' assertion that it would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art to "modify their systems to generate workflows as done by the system of claim 15, at least because Goel does not mention rules and because in Conescu, the rules are used to generate a job ticket" (App. Br. 8) is speculative and conclusory. Appellants fail to adequately show why their unsupported characterization of the prior art would have made the proposed combination nonobvious. Second, Appellants contend Conescu and Goel do not collectively teach "a workflow generator that accesses the memory to identify rules defined for the print job," as recited in claim 15. See App. Br. 10. In particular, Appellants contend Conescu's paragraph 54 describe job tickets, which are not the claimed rules. App. Br. 8. Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner explains that Conescu's paragraph 34---not paragraph 54---is cited for teaching rules. See Ans. 15. Appellants fail to adequately respond to such findings and therefore, fail to show specific fault in the Examiner's findings. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388 at 391. Third, Appellants contend Conescu and Goel do not collectively teach "a resource manager that ... detects a triggering event indicating a changed condition for the print shop, and halts processing of the first workflow responsive to detecting the triggering event," as recited in claim 15. See App. Br. 10-11. In particular, Appellants contend Consescu and Goel teach non-automated systems, and operator input is not a triggering event indicating a changed condition for the print shop. See App. Br. 11. As discussed above, Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 15, because the claim does not recite an "automatic" 5 Appeal2014-008034 Application 13/036,147 system. Appellants' attorney argument that operator input "is not a triggering event indicative of a changed condition at the print shop" (App. Br. 11) is unpersuasive, as Appellants fail to show why such unreasonably narrow claim interpretation is required. Further, the Examiner cites Goel' s paragraphs 34, which Appellants fail to analyze. See Ans. 5, 15-16. In addition, the Examiner explains why Conescu and Goel collectively teach the disputed claim limitation (Ans. 15-16), and Appellants fail to squarely respond to the Examiner's findings. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388 at 391. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15, and corresponding dependent claims Appellants do not separately argue. Regarding independent claims 1 and 8, Appellants contend Conescu and Goel do not teach the claimed "rules defined for the customer." See App. Br 12. In particular, Appellants generally assert Conescu does not teach the disputed claim limitation, and contend Conescu' s paragraph 102 discusses dependencies that are global. See App. Br 12. Appellants also advance the same arguments discussed above with respect to claim 15. See App. Br 12. The Examiner cites Conescu's paragraphs 53 and 101-104---not paragraph 102-for teaching the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 8, 16- 17. Appellants do not critique the Conescu paragraphs cited by the Examiner and therefore, fail to show specific fault in the Examiner's findings. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388 at 391. 6 Appeal2014-008034 Application 13/036,147 Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 15, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 8, and corresponding dependent claims Appellants do not separately argue. Separately Argued Dependent Claims Regarding dependent claims 3, 10, and 17, Appellants contend Conescu and Goel do not collectively teach the claim limitation "the workflow generator alters the activity available at the print shop by changing at least one of resource, dependency, or priority information for the activity based on the changed condition." See App. Br .13. In particular, Appellants assert Conescu's paragraph 12 does not teach altering priority information for the activity based on the changed condition. See App. Br 13. Because the claim recites "at least one of resource, dependency, or priority information for the activity" based on the changed condition" (emphases added), the Examiner has chosen to map the claimed dependency. See Ans. 1 7. The Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute- Conescu' s paragraphs 12 teaches the claimed dependency. See Ans. 17. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 3, 10, 17. Regarding dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, Appellants contend Duke does not teach the claim limitations "the changed condition comprises a change in cost of a print shop resource; and the workflow generator generates the second workflow based upon the change in cost of the print shop resource." See App. Br. 14. In particular, Appellants assert the cited Duke portion does not specifically discuss: 7 Appeal2014-008034 Application 13/036,147 a change in cost of a print shop resource, []or ... revising a wodiflow in response to a change in cost of a print shop resource . ... Duke does not appear to discuss detecting changes in costs of print shop resources, nor does it appear to discuss what, if any actions, to perform in response to such changes in cost. App. Br. 14. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner provides further findings showing Conescu, Goel and Duke collectively teach the disputed claim limitations. See Ans. 17-18. For example, the Examiner explains why Duke teaches "a change in cost." See Ans. 17-18. Appellants fail to adequately respond to Examiner's findings and therefore, fail to show specific fault in the Examiner's findings. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391. Further, because the Examiner relies on the combination of Conescu, Goel, and Duke to teach the disputed claim limitations, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For example, as discussed above with respect to claim 15, the Examiner finds-and Appellants fail to adequately dispute-that Conescu and Goel collectively teach "detect[ing] ... a changed condition for the print shop" and "a workflow generator ... generates a second workflow for the print job based on the changed condition" and "a print shop." Therefore, Duke does not need to also teach those claim elements. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 5, 12, and 19. 8 Appeal2014-008034 Application 13/036,147 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9