Ex Parte Mazzoleni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 2016

12625788 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/625,788 11125/2009 Pietro Mazzoleni 48063 7590 03/31/2016 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP 48 South Service Road Suite 100 Melville, NY 11747 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. YOR920080445US 1 1916 EXAMINER COUPE, ANITA YVONNE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2016 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): nyoffice@rml-law.com wel@rml-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PIETRO MAZZOLENI and BIPLA V SIV ASTA VA Appeal2013-006793 Application 12/625,788 Technology Center 3600 Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-25, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal2013-006793 Application 12/625,788 THE INVENTION The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to techniques for determining an impact of a change in requirement or specification, such as a technical or business domain requirement, on a service oriented architecture (Spec. 1:5-8). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for determining an impact of a change in a specification on one or more services associated with an enterprise, the method comprising: obtaining the change in the specification associated with the enterprise, wherein the specification represents a capability of the enterprise to satisfy a service request; obtaining a plurality of enterprise elements, wherein the enterprise elements are components of the enterprise; obtaining one or more structural rules stating relationships among the plurality of enterprise elements; obtaining one or more pre-defined impact rules indicating one or more possible changes associated with the enterprise, the one or more pre-defined impact rules having been predefined independent of the one or more services associated with the enterprise; wherein the plurality of enterprise elements, the one or more structural rules, and the one or more pre-defined impact rules are stored in a data structure in the form of a model such that the enterprise elements from a non-technical domain of the enterprise and the enterprise elements from a technical domain of the enterprise that are used to implement the enterprise elements of the nontechnical domain, and dependencies there between, are represented in the model, and wherein the enterprise elements from the technical domain represent components of a system architecture used to realize the enterprise elements of the non-technical domain; and determining the impact of the change in the specification on the one or more services and on the enterprise elements of the non-technical domain and of the technical domain of the enterprise, 2 Appeal2013-006793 Application 12/625,788 wherein the impact is determined according to the change in the specification and the model which comprises the plurality of enterprise elements, the one or more structural rules, and the one or more pre- defined impact rules, such that when an enterprise element changes in the model based on the obtained specification change, one or more of the impact rules are used to propagate the change across the model to identify which enterprise elements across the non-technical domain and the technical domain of the enterprise are affected; wherein the obtaining of the change in the specification, the obtaining of the plurality of enterprise elements, the obtaining of the one or more structural rules, the obtaining of the one or more pre- defined impact rules, the forming of the model, and the determining of the impact are implemented as instruction code executed on a processor device. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review 1: Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wilcock (U.S. 2010/0110933 Al, pub. May 6, 2010). FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2. 1 The Answer indicates that the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 has been withdrawn (Ans. 3). 2 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 Appeal2013-006793 Application 12/625,788 ANALYSIS The Appellants argue in the Appeal Brief at pages 14-19 that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitations for: [ 1] form[ ing] of a model such that the enterprise elements from a non- technical domain of the enterprise and the enterprise elements from a technical domain of the enterprise that are used to implement the enterprise elements of the nontechnical domain, and dependencies there between, are represented in the model [and] [2] determining the impact of the change in the specification on the one or more services and on the enterprise elements ... [and] ... [3] to identifj; which enterprise elements across the non-technical domain and the technical domain of the enterprise are affected (claim 1, numbering and emphasis added). The Appellants have provided arguments that the above cited claim limitations from claim 1 are not shown by Wilcock (App. Br. 14--18; Reply Br. 2-5). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the first cited claim limitations is found in Wilcock at paras. 11, 35, 49, 75, 314, Fig. 15 (items 710, 720, 730) and Fig. 18 (item 3 60); and that the second and third claim limitations are shown by Wilcock at paras 11, 38, 39, 77, 138, 203, 238, and 239 (Final Rej. 7, 8, Ans. 4---6) We agree with the Examiner. Here, the first cited claim limitation requires "form[ing] of a model ... from a non-technical domain ... and ... a technical domain ... and [that] dependencies there between are represented in the model". Wilcock at para. 11 discloses creating a service design (model) which includes hardware and software configurations 4 Appeal2013-006793 Application 12/625,788 (technical elements) and service lifecycle behaviour (non-technical elements) that matches that configuration (showing dependencies) meeting the first argued claim limitation. The second and third claim limitations identified above require determining the impact of the change on service and enterprise elements, and identifying which elements across non-technical and technical domains of the enterprise are affected. Wilcock at paragraph 203 discloses that for the Service Lifecycle Model, backtracking is permitted to explore the impact of the changes to both the service configuration (technical) and the non-functional elements (non-technical), meeting these cited claim limitations. For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellants have provided the same arguments for claims 3- 5, 8-15, and 17-25 and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above. With regard to claim 2, the Appellants have argued that the cited prior art faiis to disclose the claim iimitation for impiementing changes resuiting from the "determining of the impact of the change in the specification" (App. Br. 19, 20). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is found in Wilcock at paras 145, 154, and Figure 2 (Final Rej. 9, 10, Ans. 8). We agree with the Examiner. Wilcock, for example, in Figure 2, shows the deployment of the changes to service (step 195), which occurs after the determination steps in the process, meeting the argued claim limitation. The rejection of claim 2 is therefore sustained. With regard to claim 6, the Appellants argued that claim is directed to a conjunctive list (App. Br. 20, 21 ). We disagree as the claimed list recites elements in an "alternative" fashion. The Appellants have not shown error 5 Appeal2013-006793 Application 12/625,788 or argued that the prior art does not disclose a particular element in the list, and, thus, this rejection is sustained. The Appellants have provided the same argument for claim 7 and the rejection of this claim is sustained as well. With regard to claim 16, the Appellants argue that the rejection of record is improper because the prior art does not disclose "forming rules," but rather the "encoding" of rules (App. Br. 21, 22, Reply Br. 5, 6). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rules in Wilcock must have been formed at some point in order to encode them (Ans. 10). We agree with the Examiner that the rules in Wilcock must have been "formed" in order to be "encoded" and the rejection of claim 16 is therefore sustained as well. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as iisted in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25 is sustained. AFFIRMED 6