Ex Parte McDanielDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 23, 201612766416 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121766,416 04/23/2010 45113 7590 11/28/2016 Siemens Corporation Intellectual Property Department 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 Orlando, FL 32817 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Richard Gary McDaniel 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. 2009P07377 USOl 1385 EXAMINER OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2123 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/28/2016 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): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD GARY McDANIEL 1 Appeal2015-004531 Application 12/7 66,416 Technology Center 2100 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHNNY KUMAR, and MATHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-21, all of the pending claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND The disclosed invention is directed to systems and methods for use in computer-aided design ("CAD"), manufacturing, engineering, prototype/test, 1 Appellant indicates the real party-in-interest is Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. App. Br. 4. Appeal2015-004531 Application 12/766,416 maintenance, modeling, and visualization ("CAD systems") and product lifecycle management ("PLM"). See Spec. i-f 2. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Representative claim 1 reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as follows: 1. A method for managing behavior of a CAD model, compnsmg: receiving a geometric object and corresponding physical object, for the CAD model, in a data processing system, and receiving a corresponding user annotation that specifies a simulation behavior by associating the geometric object with the corresponding physical object, wherein the physical object describes physical qualities and behaviors of the corresponding geometric object, including at least one of movement, collisions, connections, mass, velocity, or force; executing function code in a behavior object by the data processing system, to determine required references of the behavior object, wherein the required references indicate one or more physical objects that are required for execution of the behavior object; receiving and storing an assignment of at least one of the required references of the behavior object to the physical object by the data processing system; storing the geometric object, physical object, and behavior object in the data processing system as associated with the CAD model; simulating operation of at least part of the CAD model by the data processing system according to the specified simulation behavior, including executing the behavior object by the data processing system to modify a state of the physical object. 2 Appeal2015-004531 Application 12/766,416 REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grinstein et al. (US 6,714,201 Bl; Mar. 30, 2004) ("Grinstein"), and Charles et al. (US 2007/0013709 Al; Jan. 18, 2007) ("Charles"). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner's Answer, and the arguments in the Reply Brief. We agree with Appellant's arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. The Appellant contests the Examiner's finding that Grinstein teaches or suggests "executing function code in a behavior object by the data processing system, to determine required references of the behavior object," as recited in independent claim 1, and recited similarly in independent claims 8 and 15. See App. Br. 23-28, 42--44, 56-58; Reply Br. 24-28. The Examiner makes the following findings: executing function code (see "function code" as "The basic functional code of the System is called the Run-time Engine 130 (RTE)" in col. 10, line(s) 24-29) in a behavior object by the data processing system (see "motions, behaviors, and boundaries, are each modeled as classes in an object oriented language such as c++. Since behaviors are attributes of motions, once a given class of behavior has been defined, it can be used to control different motions" in col. 5, line 66 to col. 6, line 11; "OpenMotion API uses a class called Behavior" in col. 29, line( s) 7-15), to determine required references of the behavior object, wherein the required references indicate one or more physical objects that are required for execution of the behavior object (see "references" as "Expressions" of 'An instance of the motion class, or motion, contains state information for multiple spatial degrees of freedom, such as translation, rotation, and scaling which can be associated with an 3 Appeal2015-004531 Application 12/766,416 object. Each degree of freedom has a characteristic trajectory. Motions may be combined by expressions that specify hierarchical parent-child relationships, expressions that specify blending of simultaneous motions, and expressions that extract attribute information" in col. 17, line 66 to col. 18, line 7; "references" as "Expressions" of 'Expressions, referred to as"algebraic expressions" above, may be regarded as the "cables" that interconnect the elements of the motion model. The programmer uses expressions to link motions, behaviors, and boundaries to each other, and to transmit data to and from application specific code' in col. 18, line(s) 34-46). Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 19--20. The Examiner further explains: [s]ince Grinstein's 'RTE contains all of the functions, which are accessible through the API 102 as well as some which are accessible only from within the code of the RTE itself,' it is the Examiner's position that any one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize Grinstein's RTE as 'function code'." Ans. 20 (citing Grinstein 10:24--29, Fig. 1). We agree with Appellant's argument that Grinstein's Run-time Engine ("RTE") is not "function code in a behavior object." See App. Br. 24, 42--43, 56-57; Reply Br. 26, 30. Specifically, the RTE is not "in a behavior object" (i.e., Grinstein's classes), as claimed, but rather contains all "behavior objects." Grinstein, 10:24--29 ("The Run-time Engine ('RTE') contains all of the functions, types, and classes which are accessible through the API I 02 ... ") (emphasis added). We also agree with Appellant's argument that there is no teaching or suggestion in Grinstein "that executing code in a behavior class determines required references (or even "expressions") for a behavior object, as would be required by the Office Action's analysis." App. Br. 28, 44, 58; Reply Br. 28, 30. As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Charles do not remedy the deficiencies of Grinstein. See Final Act. 6 4 Appeal2015-004531 Application 12/766,416 Accordingly, for these reasons, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 as unpatentable over Grinstein and Charles. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-21. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation