Ex Parte KULKARNI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 2016

12761998 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121761,998 04/16/2010 63675 7590 03/18/2016 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL 24 Greenway Plaza SUITE 1600 HOUSTON, TX 77046-2472 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ASHISH A. KULKARNI 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. IN920090143US 1 2429 EXAMINER DELI CH, STEPHANIE ZAGARELLA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2016 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): P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ASHISH A. KULKARNI and VENKA TESH PATIL Appeal2013-009978 1 Application 12/761,9982 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-23, and 25-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Feb. 25, 2013), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 9, 2013), the Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed Sept. 25, 2012), and the Specification ("Spec.," filed Apr. 16, 2010). 2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2013-009978 Application 12/761,998 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants' invention "relate[s] generally to complex event processing and more particularly to abstracting and realizing complex event scenarios using dynamic rule creation." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 9, and 1 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Independent claim 1 (Appeal Br. 29), reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A computer-implemented method of abstracting and instantiating business scenarios defining derived events, the method comprising: receiving a selection of a business scenario template having at least one configurable parameter which, when configured, allows a corresponding business scenario to be generated from the business scenario template, the business scenario defining what constitutes an occurrence of an event derived from a plurality of lower level events; receiving input configuring the at least one configurable parameter of the selected business scenario template; generating the business scenario based on the received input and the selected business scenario template and by operation of one or more computer processors; and upon detecting the occurrence of the derived event defined by the business scenario, executing an action responsive to the occurrence of the derived event. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bates (US 2008/0209078 Al, pub. Aug. 28, 2008) in view of Alshab (US 2007/0168990 Al, pub. July 19, 2007). Ans. 6; Final Act. 6. 2 Appeal2013-009978 Application 12/761,998 Claims 3, 5-7, 11, 13-15, 19, 21-23, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bates, Alshab, and Chen (US 7,457,728 B2, iss. Nov. 25, 2008). Ans. 15; Final Act. 15. FINDINGS OF FACT We determine that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 3 ANALYSIS Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites the limitation of "receiving a selection of a business scenario template having at least one configurable parameter which, when configured, allows a corresponding business scenario to be generated from the business scenario template, the business scenario defining what constitutes an occurrence of an event derived from a plurality of lower-level events." Claims App. The Examiner relies on Bates for disclosing the limitation. Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that "a display is a generation of information describing a scenario." Ans. 30-31. The Examiner further finds that, based on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of "generating the business scenario template," and of "scenario" as "a synopsis, outline, or overview of an event or series of events," the limitation is met by "Bates' dashboard generated from a generation module [that] utilizes data to present an overview describing a business process, or a scenario." Id. at 31. 3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 Appeal2013-009978 Application 12/761,998 We are persuaded by the Appellants' arguments that Bates does not disclose the limitation of receiving a selection of a business scenario template because Bates does not teach allowing generation of an event-based process from the dashboard template, but rather only displays an existing event-based process. See Appeal Br. 14. The ordinary and customary meaning of "generate" is to bring or create something into existence by a process. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam- webster.com/ dictionary/ generate (retrieved Mar. 7, 2016). The Specification defines a "business scenario template" as "an abstract, parameterized business scenario" (Spec. i-f 28) and discusses "in generating a business scenario instance 154, the application 150 may process all the parameters of the business scenario template 152" (id. at i-f 30). Although the Examiner finds that "a display is a generation of information describing a scenario" (Ans. 30-31 ), it is not apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that a business scenario is created into existence by a process from Bates' template, since the scenario already exists and has been identified. See Bates i-fi-1 9, 71. Rather, Bates discloses generating a template from an identified scenario. See id. Thus, we agree that Bates does not disclose the limitation of receiving a selection of a template having a configurable parameter, "which when configured, allows a corresponding business scenario to be generated from the business scenario template," as claimed. For the above reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). We also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2-7, 10-15, 18-23, and 25-27, each of which ultimately depends from one of independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d. 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are 4 Appeal2013-009978 Application 12/761,998 nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"). CONCLUSION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) are REVERSED. REVERSED 5