Ex Parte McDaniel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

12766416 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

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