Ex Parte Kieselbach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

13733563 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
13/733,563 01/03/2013 Oliver Kieselbach 22135-0167001/120144US01 3055
32864 7590 06/02/2017
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
UDDIN, MD I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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 OLIVER KIESELBACH and BERND OTTE
Appeal 2017-0028801
Application 13/733,563
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 24 (App. Br. 1). Claims 2, 5—
7, 10, 13—15, 18, and 21—23 have been canceled (Claims App’x). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants the real party in interest is SAP SE (See App. Br.
2).
Appeal 2017-002880
Application 13/733,563
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a computer-
implemented method, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and
computer system for providing a business process visibility resource model
(Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request for process data from a client device;
parsing the received request to determine a type of
process data to return and to recover request parameters
used to retrieve the data from a process resource model,
the process resource model including a navigational
media link attribute providing access to Business Process
Model and Notation (BPMN) representations of process
definitions;
determining that the type of process data requested is
process definition data;
retrieving, in response to the determination, process data
based upon the navigational media link attribute;
generating a response returning data in a format
compliant with the type of process data requested; and
transmitting the generated response data.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Georgalas
Markovic
Lutter
US 2005/0216498 A1
US 8,326,795 B2
US 2013/0304799 A1
Sept. 29, 2005
Dec. 4, 2012
Nov. 14, 2013
2
Appeal 2017-002880
Application 13/733,563
Akkiraju US 2014/0067444 A1 Mar. 6,2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Akkiraju, Markovic, and Georgalas
(Final Act. 4—7).
Claims 3,11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Akkiraju, Markovic, Georgalas, and Lutter (Final Act. 7—
8).
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 24
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 12,
16, 17, 20, and 24, is not obvious over Akkiraju, Markovic, and Georgalas
(App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 1—5). The issues presented by the arguments
are:
Issue 1: Does the combination of Akkiraju, Markovic, and Georgalas
teach or suggest “determine that the type of process data requested is process
definition data,” as recited in claim 1?
Issue 2: Does the combination of Akkiraju, Markovic, and Georgalas
teach or suggest “retrieve, in response to the determination, process data
based upon the navigational media link attribute,” as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal 2017-002880
Application 13/733,563
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Initially, Appellants argue the Examiner relied upon portions of
Markovic for the first time in the Answer (Reply Br. 2—3). If Appellants
believe the Examiner’s Answer contained a new ground of rejection not
identified as such, Appellants should have filed a petition under 37 CFR
1.181(a) within two months from the mailing of the Examiner’s Answer
requesting that a ground of rejection set forth in the Answer be designated as
a new ground of rejection:
If appellant believes that an examiner’s answer contains a new
ground of rejection not identified as such, appellant may file a petition
under 37 CFR 1.181(a) within two months from the mailing of the
examiner’s answer requesting that a ground of rejection set forth in
the answer be designated as a new ground of rejection. Any such
petition must set forth a detailed explanation as to why the ground of
rejection set forth in the answer constitutes a new ground of rejection.
Any allegation that an examiner’s answer contains a new ground of
rejection not identified as such is waived if not timely raised (i.e., by
filing the petition within two months of the answer) by way of a
petition under 37 CFR 1.181(a).
MPEP §1207.03(IV) (emphasis added).
Here, Appellants’ allegation that the Answer contains a new ground of
rejection is waived because the allegation was not timely raised (i.e., by
filing the petition within two months of the answer) by way of a petition
under 37 C.F.R. 1.181(a).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Akkiraju, Markovic, and Georgalas teaches or suggests “determin[ing] that
the type of process data requested is process definition data,” as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 10—11; Reply Br. 1—3). Specifically, Appellants argue
4
Appeal 2017-002880
Application 13/733,563
Markovic teaches receiving a user input defining behavioral and static
aspects of a target process artifact, defining a query specification that
includes a process definition component, and outputting a candidate process
artifact (App. Br. 10 (citing Markovic 6:33—42); Reply Br. 2). According to
Appellants, these teachings in Markovic are different from “determining that
the type of process data requested is process definition data,” as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 10). Appellants further contend querying a process
artifact library using the process definition component and determining a
business guideline associated with the output candidate process as taught in
Markovic also does not teach the disputed limitation (App. Br. 10—11 (citing
2:29-32, 37-39); Reply Br. 2-3).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds Markovic teaches
determining the type of process data requested from the type indicator, the
axiom component, and the process definition component and in particular,
defining a query specification including a type indicator, in response to a
received process query (Ans. 2 (citing Markovic 7:21, Fig. 3, steps 304, 306,
2:25—26)). The type indicator indicates whether the candidate process
artifact is to be appended to or substituted for an existing process artifact
(Markovic 2:25—28). The Examiner further finds the query specification
also includes an axiom component and a process definition component that
expresses the behavioral aspect of a business process and determines a
business guideline (process definition data) (Ans. 2). The axiom component
indicates the static nature of the process (Markovic 1:39-41, 2:20-21); the
process definition component indicates the behavioral aspect ontologized
(Markovic 1:39—42).
5
Appeal 2017-002880
Application 13/733,563
We agree with the Examiner Markovic teaches determining the
business guideline of the process (a process definition) associated with the
process from the type indicator, the axiom component, and the process
definition component (Ans. 2 (citing Markovic 2:37—39). Accordingly,
Appellants have not persuaded us the combination of Akkiraju, Markovic,
and Georgalas fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious
“determine that the type of process data requested is process definition
data,” as recited in claim 1.
Issue 2
Appellants next contend the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Akkiraju, Markovic, and Georgalas teaches or suggests
“retriev[ing], in response to the determination, process data based upon the
navigational media link attribute,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 11—12;
Reply Br. 3—5). Appellants argue outputting a determined business guideline
and an ontology navigator which the user may browse as taught in Markovic
does not teach the disputed limitation (App. Br. 11—12 (citing Markovic
2:37—39, 8:23—54); Reply Br. 3—4). Appellants furthermore assert the
Examiner has not shown how the “Creation Done” concept retrieved based
on a user query and the drill down action in Markovic teaches the disputed
limitation (Reply Br. 4—5 (citing Markovic 11:64—67)).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds
Markovic teaches the user’s query returns the “Creation Done” concept
(Ans. 3 (citing Markovic 11:64—67)). We agree with the Examiner this
teaching suggests retrieving, in response to the determination, process data
because the “Creation Done” concept along with the subconcepts
6
Appeal 2017-002880
Application 13/733,563
“UserProfile Created” and “CatalogEntry Created” are the recited
navigational media link attribute (Ans. 3 (citing Markovic 11:64—67)). The
Examiner explains that the user may drill down to see information for the
subconcepts “UserProfile Created” and “CatalogEntry Created.” Thus,
Appellants have not persuaded us the combination of Akkiraju, Markovic,
and Georgalas fails to teach “retrieve, in response to the determination,
process data based upon the navigational media link attribute,” as recited in
claim 1.
Summary
In light of these findings and conclusions, Appellants have not
persuaded us the combination of Akkiraju, Markovic, and Georgalas fails to
teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the limitations as recited in claim
1, and claims 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 24, not separately argued (App. Br.
12—13; Reply Br. 5).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 3, 11, and 19
Appellants did not separately argue claims 3,11, and 19, instead
relying on arguments set forth with respect to claim 1 and contending Lutter
fails to cure the deficiencies of the combination of Akkiraju, Markovic, and
Georgalas (App. Br. 13). For the reasons set forth above, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 3,11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Akkiraju, Markovic, Georgalas, and Lutter.
7
Appeal 2017-002880
Application 13/733,563
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Akkiraju, Markovic,
and Georgalas is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3,11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Akkiraju, Markovic, Georgalas, and
Lutter is affirmed.
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
8