Ex Parte Moore

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 18, 2016

11431885 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111431,885 0510912006 62730 7590 03/22/2016 SAP SE 3410 HILL VIEW A VENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94304 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dennis B. Moore 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. 2003P00479US 7329 EXAMINER YOUNG, ASHLEY YA-SHEH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2016 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): APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM GIPinhouse@sap.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DENNIS B. MOORE Appeal2013-007240 Application 11/431,885 1 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Dennis Moore (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 The Appellants identify SAP AG as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2013-007240 Application 11/431,885 THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method comprising: providing a business process repository in a memory device of a system to store an original business process, the original business process being a currently deployed business process in use in the system, where phases of the original business process are implemented from process objects of an enterprise server backend, where the process objects include services callable by composite applications to create multiple different business processes including the original business process from the process objects, where the original business process is a composite application created from modeled software components in a user device front end, and which incorporates multiple process objects to tie the process objects to process logic of the business process, the original business process having code that is separate from code of the process objects; and where changes to the code of the process objects in the enterprise server changes the overall business process operation without changing the code of the composite application that incorporates the multiple process objects; receiving a suggested modification to at least one of the process objects of the original business process from a suggestion source in accordance with a modification framework that provides incremental changeability to deployed business processes stored in the business process repository, where the suggested modification includes a change to the at least one of the process objects to alter the operation of the business process via modification to the at least one of the process objects used to create the business process without 2 Appeal2013-007240 Application 11/431,885 changing the code of the original business process by not changing the composite application; generating an instance of the original business process by instantiating each process object of each phase of the original business process with the enterprise server as a copy of the original business process, the copy of the business process generated with the suggested modification to generate a proposed modified business process instance; storing the generated proposed modified business process instance in the business process repository; evaluating the proposed modified business process within the system via the enterprise server, including presenting the proposed modified business process to an owner of the original business process, and testing the proposed modified business process; and deploying the proposed modified business process from the enterprise server as a modified business process in place of the original business process when the testing produces an expected result. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Stok Guicciardi Yeung US 2003/0033182 Al US 2003/0083915 Al US 2005/0165822 Al Feb. 13,2003 May 1, 2003 July 28, 2005 North Carolina Statewide Technical Architecture - Implementation Guidelines: Application Architecture (NPL- 2004) (hereinafter "NC Statewide") Heller et al., A Management System for Evolving Development Process (2003) (hereinafter "Heller") 3 Appeal2013-007240 Application 11/431,885 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 3-5, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guicciardi, Yeung, NC Statewide, and Stok. 2. Claims 2, 6-21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guicciardi, Yeung, NC Statewide, Stok, and Heller. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3-5, and 22 under 3 5 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guicciardi, Yeung, NC Statewide, and Stok and claims 2, 6-21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guicciardi, Yeung, NC Statewide, Stok, and Heller? FINDINGS OF FACT We rely on the Examiner's factual findings stated in the Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Guicciardi, Yeung, NC Statewide, and Stok. The Appellant argued claims 1, 3-5, and 22 as a group (Br. 5-10). We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims 3-5 and 22 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (2007). 4 Appeal2013-007240 Application 11/431,885 We are unpersuaded by the Appellant's arguments as to error in the rejection. The Examiner's position has not been adequately challenged. The Final Rejection sets forth, in great detail, the passages and Figures the Examiner relied upon in finding that Guicciardi discloses all the claim limitations but for (1) "process objects of the original business process and their distinct codes, callable services, changing the process objects without changing the original business process code, and generating, evaluating, and deploying the original business process code with modifications" (Final Act. 5), (2) "process objects of the original business process and their distinct codes, callable services, and changing the process objects without changing the original business process code" (Final Act. 8); and (3) "process objects of the original business process and their distinct codes and changing the process objects without changing the original business process code" (Final Act. 9), and the passages in Yeung, NC Statewide, and Stok, respectively, relied upon to show said missing subject matter. And yet not a single passage cited by the Examiner has been addressed. Rather than challenging the Examiner's characterization of the scope and content of the cited prior art and differences between the prior art and the claimed invention (as the Examiner was required to do to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in the first instance), the Appellant asserts that the "rejection of the claims is based on [incorrect underlying] assumptions" (Br. 8) about the applicability of the cited references to the claimed invention. 5 Appeal2013-007240 Application 11/431,885 Notwithstanding the assumptions do not squarely address the Examiner's position, they are undermined by arguments over limitations not in the claim or inconsistent with it. For example, the Appellant argues that [ t ]here is no reasonable interpretation of the references that can disclose or suggest the claimed incremental change to a deployed business process, in that a change to a reusable object is proposed without changing the business process code itself, and deploying the proposed modified instance when testing produces an expected result. Br. 10. This is not, however, commensurate in scope with what is claimed. There is no claim limitation to "incremental" change or "reusable" objects. Even the vague phrase "business process code" does not accurately capture what is claimed. Claim 1 is directed to an original business process where "phases of the original business process are implemented from process objects of an enterprise server backend." "[T]he original business process is a composite application created from modeled software components in a user device frontend ... the original business process having code that is separate from code of the process objects" (claim 1). "[C]hanges to the code of the process objects in the enterprise server changes the overall business process operation without changing the code of the composite application that incorporates the multiple process objects" (claim 1 ). It is the "code of the composite application" (claim 1) that remains unchanged, not necessarily "business process code" (Br. 10). For the foregoing reasons, the Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive as to error in the rejection. 6 Appeal2013-007240 Application 11/431,885 The rejection of claims 2, 6--21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Guicciardi, Yeung, NC Statewide, Stok, and Heller. The arguments challenging this rejection rely on those challenging the rejection of claim 1 above. For the same reasons, the rejection is sustained. CONCLUSIONS The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guicciardi, Yeung, NC Statewide, and Stok is affirmed. The rejection of claims 2, 6-21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guicciardi, Yeung, NC Statewide, Stok, and Heller is affirmed. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-24 is AFFIR1\1ED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 7