Ex Parte Holmes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2017

13605376 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 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.
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