Ex Parte Holmes et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 201713605376 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 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. 13/605,376 09/06/2012 Ta'id Holmes 22135-0257001/120035US01 9594 32864 7590 03/24/2017 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER HICKS, MICHAEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2165 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2017 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 TA’ID HOLMES, ANDREAS ROTH, ANIS CHARFI, and HEIKO WITTEBORG Appeal 2016-008433 Application 13/605,376 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-008433 Application 13/605,376 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—10, 12, 13, 15—18, 20, 21, and 23—27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method performed by data processing apparatus to visualize reporting data using system models, the method comprising: extracting reporting data from a plurality of data sources, each data source configured to store at least a portion of the reporting data, wherein the reporting data includes runtime information generated during execution of a software module modeling a business process comprising a plurality of business process steps, the runtime information describing the plurality of business process steps executed in response to executing the software module, and wherein code to generate the reporting data is encoded in models based on which the software module is encoded; mapping the extracted reporting data to a common language for reporting; correlating the mapped reporting data to elements of system models by generating a plurality of execution points that correspond to a plurality of elements of system models, wherein each element of a system model corresponds to a business process step, wherein reporting data mapped to an element of a system model includes runtime information describing a business process step that corresponds to the element of the system model, wherein each execution point is uniquely identifiable; identifying visualization options to present the mapped reporting data correlated to the system models, wherein, for each business process step, the visualization 2 Appeal 2016-008433 Application 13/605,376 options present runtime information describing a business process step together with an element of a system model that corresponds to the business process step, wherein the visualization options are defined using the system models enriched with abstract annotations to form abstract models defining relevant reporting data that are further enriched with concrete annotations to form concrete models, and wherein the abstract annotations assign the relevant reporting data to elements of the system models to enrich the system models with data from runtime and analytics; and presenting the mapped reporting data and the plurality of elements of the system models in a user interface according to the visualization options defined by the concrete models in response to receiving a request for reporting data. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Walker1, Pothier2, and Beeri3.4 1 Robert J. Walker et al., Visualizing Dynamic Software System Information through High-level Models, in OOPSLA, pp. 271—283, 1998. 2 (Guillaume Pothier & Eric Tanter, Summarized Trace Indexing and Querying for Scalable Back-in-Time Debugging, in ECOOP 2011 — Object Oriented Programming, 25th European Conference, Lancaster, UK, pp. 558— 582, July 25—29, 2011 Proceedings (M. Mezini eds., 2011)) 3 Catriel Beeri et al., Monitoring Business Processes with Queries, in VLDB ’07: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 603—614, September 23—27, 2007. 4 The patentability of claims 2, 4, 5, 7—10, 12, 13, 15—18, 20, 21, and 23—27 is not separately argued from that of claim 1. See App. Br. 15—16. Thus, except for our ultimate decision, claims 2, 4, 5, 7—10, 12, 13, 15—18, 20, 21, and 23—27 are not discussed further herein. 3 Appeal 2016-008433 Application 13/605,376 2. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 15—18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Walker and Pothier. Appellants ’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: [N]either of the cited portions of Walker have been shown to teach or to suggest “identifying visualization options to present the mapped reporting data correlated to the system models,” particularly where “the visualization options are defined using the system models enriched with abstract annotations to form abstract models defining relevant reporting data that are further enriched with concrete annotations to form concrete models, and wherein the abstract annotations assign the relevant reporting data to elements of the system models to enrich the system models with data from runtime and analytics” as in claim 1. While Walker may or may not contain similar terms as claim 1, Applicants assert that Walker has not been shown to teach or to suggest all elements of the above- asserted portion of claim 1. The Office Action’s statement on p. 8 that “[sjections 2.1, 2.2 and 5.4 ... clearly indicate [emphasis added] that a number of visualization option [sic.] are present within the system of Walker, wherein the cels of the visualizations include abstract annotations, wherein the abstract annotations define abstract entities representing relevant reporting data which is to be assigned to the system model via the abstract entities and presented and which are enriched with runtime data and analytics which represent the concrete annotations” is simply purely conclusory. Applicants fail to understand the Examiner's statement on p. 8 of the Office Action (see also p. 3 of the Office Action) asserting a clear indication of “cels of the visualizations including] abstract annotations ... defining] abstract entities representing relevant reporting data which is 4 Appeal 2016-008433 Application 13/605,376 to be assigned to the system model via the abstract entities and presented and which are enriched with runtime data and analytics which represent the concrete annotations. ” Applicants respectfully assert that the Office Action is merely taking terms from Applicant's claims (e.g., “abstract,” “annotations, ” etc.) and improperly attempting to map Applicants’ claim to portions of Walker. For example, Applicants disagree that... “each box drawn identically within each cel represents a particular abstract entity” and that a “set of directed arcs representing] ... calls between boxes... the total number of [which] is manageable... interaction[s of which] are shown as a number annotating the directed arc [where] [e]ach box is annotated with numbers and bars indicating the total number of objects that map to the box that have been allocated and deallocated to the current interval” corresponds to each and every feature Applicants’ claims. For example, Applicants note that the cited portions of Walker have at least not been shown to teach or to suggest defined “system models enriched with abstract annotations to form abstract models defining relevant reporting data.” Moreover, the cited portions of Walker have also not been shown to teach or to suggest the abstract models [defining relevant reporting data] being “further enriched with concrete annotations to form concrete models” and that “abstract annotations assign the relevant reporting data to elements of the system models to enrich the system models with data from runtime and analytics, ” as in claim 1. App. Br. 13—14 (Appellants’ emphasis omitted, panel’s emphasis added). 2. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 1, Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: [P]. 5 of the Answer argues that “cels ... include abstract annotations ... abstract annotations define abstract entities representing relevant reporting data which is to be assigned to the system model via the abstract entities representing relevant 5 Appeal 2016-008433 Application 13/605,376 reporting data which is to be assigned to the system model via the abstract entities and presented and which are enriched with runtime data and analytics which represent the concrete annotations.” Appellants assert that “abstract annotations defining] abstract entities representing relevant reporting data” are different than “visualization options... defined using the system models enriched with abstract annotations,” where “the system models enriched with abstract annotations” are used “to form abstract models defining relevant reporting data. ” Particularly, no equivalent mapping has been shown in the Examiner’s arguments/Walker to “abstract models ... that are further enriched with concrete annotations to form concrete models” as in claim 1. To Appellants, the Examiner’s statement that “abstract entities ... which are enriched with runtime data and analytics which represent the concrete annotations” is simply unclear and, for example, has not been shown to teach or to suggest at least “concrete annotations, ” “concrete models,” and that concrete models are formed from “abstract models defining relevant reporting data that are further enriched with concrete annotations,” as in claim 1. Appellants note that the “Response to Argument” on pp. 11-13 of the Answer appears to provide an expanded proposed mapping between various portions of Walker and elements of claim 1. However, this new mapping information still fails to mention or to map at least “concrete models” as in claim 1. While, p. 5 of the Answer states that “Examiner notes that the final visualizations which are presented include the runtime data and analytics of the concrete annotations and therefore represent the concrete models,” Appellants assert that this explanation vaguely attempts to include Appellants claimed “concrete models” into the Examiner’s arguments without ensuring the contextual correctness of the mapping to Appellants’ claims using various elements of Walker. The Examiner’s assertion simply does not map properly to at least the claimed flow/element dependencies of claim 1: “visualization options... defined using the system models enriched with abstract annotations to form abstract models defining relevant reporting data that are further enriched with concrete annotations to form concrete models 6 Appeal 2016-008433 Application 13/605,376 Accordingly, Appellants assert that the Answer’s repeated statement that provided arguments “clearly indicate” [emphasis added] the merits of Walker is incorrect and unclear, at least due to improper mapping as explained above (see, for example, Answer, pp. 5 and 11-13 and Office Action, p. 8, with respect to “[sjections 2.1, 2.2 and 5.4”). To Appellants, the Examiner’s repeated use of “clearly indicate” is itself conclusory in nature as the Examiner’s arguments are neither clear nor do they clearly indicate the assertion being made. Moreover, the Examiner’s support of the merits of applying Walker to Appellants’ claims appears to be based on a number of keywords matched to Appellants’ claims (for example, “abstract, ” “annotations, ” “concrete, ” etc.) and corresponding arguments attempting to force a convoluted application of elements of Walker onto elements of Appellants’ claims. Whether some elements of Walker can be technically keyword- hatched” to the elements of Appellant’s claims, Appellants assert that the proffered mapping(s) is(are), as explained above, simply not consistent with the context of elements of Appellants’ claims. Appellants respectfully assert that this type of mapping does not meet the Office’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) regarding establishment of a prima facie case of obviousness. Neither Pothier nor Beeri have been shown to remedy these above-identified deficiencies of Walker. Reply Br. 5—6 (Appellants’ emphasis omitted, panel’s emphasis added). 3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Applicants respectfully assert that the proposed combination of Walker, Pothier, and Beeri is improper because the Office Action relied on information gleaned solely from Applicants' Specification. In the instant matter, the Office Action relied at least on “wherein the abstract annotations assign the relevant reporting data to elements of the system models to enrich the system 7 Appeal 2016-008433 Application 13/605,376 models with data from runtime and analytics, ” as in claim, 1 to allegedly support the proposed combination of Walker, Pothier, and Beeri. However, this reasoning is absent from the cited art and is only present in Applicants’ Specification (for example, at paras. [0026-0027 and 0046]). In the cited section of the Specification, it is discussed that “by relating information from runtime and analytics with models at reporting time, MbR can bridge phases of the business application engineering life cycle, for example, by enabling stakeholders to consume the reporting data while relating to models. In an MDE context, the models can be design time artifacts. Users can use the MbRs as a starting point for modifying and evolving model-driven business applications, thereby shortening development cycles.” Due to the lack of this reasoning in the cited art and the fact that it is only present on the record in Applicants’ specification, it logically follows that this reasoning has been improperly gleaned from Applicants’ own specification and that the proposed combination of Walker, Pothier, and Beeri is an exercise of impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, it is respectfully asserted that the combination is improper and respectfully requested that the rejection be withdrawn. App. Br. 15 (Appellants’ emphasis omitted, panel’s emphasis added). 4. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 3, Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because, “[wjhile the Answer states on p. 13 that ‘a statement of motivation to combine each of the cited references is included within the rejection,’ Appellants assert that a provided statement of motivation, when based on improper hindsight reasoning, should not be allowed to stand.” Reply Br. 7 (Appellants’ emphasis omitted, panel’s emphasis added). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious? 8 Appeal 2016-008433 Application 13/605,376 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 2—15); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—14) in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following. As to Appellants’ above contentions 1 and 2, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that Walker’s “cels” teach the claimed “visualization options.” See Non-Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 11 (citing Walker at 272). We further agree with the Examiner that Walker’s disclosure of a mapping indicating specific system entities matching a particular pattern are represented by a specific abstract entity, and thus, by a box in the visualization (i.e., “cel”), teaches the claimed “wherein the visualization options are defined using the system models enriched with abstract annotations to form abstract models defining relevant reporting data.” See Non-Final Act. 8 (citing Walker at 281); see also Ans. 11—12; see also Walker at 277 (“[a] map indicates that specific system entities, such as objects of a given class or methods matching a particular pattern, are to be represented by a specific abstract entity (and thus, by a box in the visualization)”). Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Walker’s disclosure of an annotation of each box within a cell with numbers and bars indicating a total number of objects that map to the box that have been 9 Appeal 2016-008433 Application 13/605,376 allocated and deallocated teaches the claimed “abstract models . . . that are further enriched with concrete annotations to form concrete models,” and “wherein the abstract annotations assign the relevant reporting data to elements of the system models to enrich the system models with data from the runtime and analytics.” See Non-Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 12 (citing Walker at 274). Appellants’ above contentions 1 and 2 allege that the above cited teachings of Walker are distinct from the claim limitation wherein the visualization options are defined using the system models enriched with abstract annotations to form abstract models defining relevant reporting data that are further enriched with concrete annotations to form concrete models, and wherein the abstract annotations assign the relevant reporting data to elements of the system models to enrich the system models with data from runtime and analytics as recited in claim 1. However, the aforementioned contentions fail to persuasively explain the distinctions between the aforementioned claim limitation and the cited teachings of Walker. See App. Br. 12—14; see also Reply Br. 2—6. Thus, we conclude that Appellants’ above contentions 1 and 2 do not patentably distinguish the aforementioned claim limitation from the cited references. As to Appellants’ above contentions 3 and 4, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that the Examiner’s stated motivation to combine each of the cited references does not rely on information contained within Appellants’ Specification, but, instead, relies on the disclosures of Pothier and Beeri, which respectively describe the benefits associated with the respective systems described in Pothier and Beeri (i.e., “implementing an interactive exploration interface for execution 10 Appeal 2016-008433 Application 13/605,376 traces” as taught by Pothier, and “monitoring the execution of business processes and visually defining monitoring tasks and associated reporting,” as taught by Beeri). See Non-Final Act. 9, 11; see also Ans. 13. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the motivation to combine the cited references is found in the cited references themselves, not Appellants’ Specification. See Ans. 13. Appellants allege in their above contentions 3 and 4 that the Office Action relied on the claim limitation “wherein the abstract annotations assign the relevant reporting data to elements of the system models to enrich the system models with data from runtime and analytics,” of claim 1 to support the proposed combination of Walker, Pothier, and Beeri. However, Appellants fail to specifically identify where the Office Action relied on the aforementioned claim limitation or any other portion of Appellants’ Specification to support the proposed combination of the cited references. See App. Br. 15—16; see also Reply Br. 6—7. Thus, we do not find the aforementioned contentions persuasive. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—10, 12, 13, 15—18, 20, 21, and 23—27 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—10, 12, 13, 15—18, 20, 21, and 23—27 are not patentable. 11 Appeal 2016-008433 Application 13/605,376 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—10, 12, 13, 15—18, 20, 21, and 23—27 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation