Ex Parte WelkerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201712849562 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/849,562 08/03/2010 Gerhard Welker 2010P00181US 8084 62730 7590 SAP SE 3410 HILLVIEW AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94304 05/30/2017 EXAMINER SHEIKH, ASFAND M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2017 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 GERHARD WELKER Appeal 2016-003486 Application 12/849,562 Technology Center 3600 Before: CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-003486 Application 12/849,562 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a visual pathfinder for product structure recursions. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1 A method comprising: analyzing, in a computer, a virtual product structure, the virtual product structure corresponding to a physical product, to identify a recursion in the product structure, a recursion existing when a lower level item in the product structure is the same as a higher level item in the product structure; generating a graphical representation of the product structure exposing the recursion; and displaying the graphical representation within a graphical user interface on an electronic display. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: 2BizBox Documentation: Audit Recursive BOM, http://doc.servasoftware.com/ (Dec. 31, 2008) (“2BizBox”). REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by 2BizBox. Final Act. 6—10. 2 Appeal 2016-003486 Application 12/849,562 Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 2BizBox and the Examiner’s Official Notice. Final Act. 10-12. ANALYSIS Appellant’s contentions of error in connection with dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 9, and 13 are persuasive of Examiner error. However, we are not persuaded in connection with the rejections of the remaining claims. Claims 1 and 11 In connection with the independent claims 1 and 11, Appellant argues “[t]he Examiner’s reliance on . . . varying interpretations of a graphical depiction without any supporting text as allegedly disclosing at least four distinct features of Appellant’s claim set reflects ... a misunderstanding of the Office’s obligations under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” App. Br. 8. Appellant further contends the Examiner’s application of 2BizBox’s color-coded listing of components is improperly relied upon for disclosing multiple differing elements recited by the respective claims. Id. The Examiner responds by finding the 2BizBox drawings (including text appearing within the drawing) in combination with associated supporting text (e.g., text describing clicking “Start” to “show all the recursive BOMS”) disclose the argued features of the claims. Final Act. 6—7; 2BizBox 3. The Examiner further explains how the claims are interpreted such that color-coding of listed components discloses the argued elements. Ans. 2-4. For claims 1 and 11, Appellant’s contention concerning the lack of supporting text is unpersuasive, both factually and as a matter of law. In particular, the 2BizBox drawings include text within the figures in addition to supporting text adjacent the figures. Furthermore, drawings, like 3 Appeal 2016-003486 Application 12/849,562 references in any other form, are “evaluated] and applied] ... on the basis of what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one skilled in the art.” In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979) (quoting In re Baum, 374 F.2d 1004, 1009 (CCPA 1967)). Accordingly, “[description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) (quotation omitted). We also are not persuaded of error by the Examiner’s reliance on 2BizBox’s color-coding for purposes of claims 1 and 11 because, under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the claims, the color-coding can properly disclose multiple limitations as recited by the claims. Appellant further contends “[t]he mere act of displaying a graphic predefined in a file thereby revealing those previously tagged recursions [as disclosed by 2BizBox] would not constitute analysis of the product structure by the computer to identify the recursions” as required by claims 1 and 11. App. Br. 9. In particular, Appellant argues the identification and display of recursive BOMs does not require or imply the recited computer analysis of the underlying structure. App. Br. 9. According to Appellant, the Examiner’s interpretation of the recited limitation is unduly broad in view of Appellant’s proffered dictionary definition that the word “analyze” means “to examine (something) methodically and in detail, typically in order to explain and interpret it.” Id. We disagree with Appellant. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that when viewed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, 2BizBox’s disclosure of clicking a “Start” button to “Audit Recursive BOM” and “show all the recursive BOMS in the list UI” discloses the analyzing step of claims 1 and 11. Ans. 4; 2BizBox 1—3. In contrast, Appellant fails to 4 Appeal 2016-003486 Application 12/849,562 provide persuasive evidence that the “analyzing” step imposes requirements beyond achieving the recited result of “identify[ing] a recursion in the product structure.” App. Br. 9. Further, even if we were to accept Appellant’s definition for analyzing as requiring a detailed, methodical examination to explain and interpret the product structure, Appellant fails to explain why 2BizBox’s “Audit” fails to disclose such an examination. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claim 7 Appellant’s contention of error in connection with the rejection of independent claim 7 is similar to that presented in connection with independent claims 1 and 11, with Appellant further arguing the recursions identified by 2BizBox may be identified manually rather than by a module executing on a computer as required by claim 7. App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds, by clicking 2BizBox’s “Start” button to “Audit Recursive BOM,” a system processor identifies and displays recursive BOMs, thereby disclosing the argued recursion analysis module. Ans. 4—5. We agree with the Examiner. One skilled in the art at the time of the invention would have understood 2BizBox’s user interface start button would cause a system processor to audit and identify recursions in a BOM, thereby disclosing the recursion analysis module of claim 7. Therefore we sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2 and 12 Appellant contends the Examiner fails to identify in 2BizBox any disclosure of a relationship causing the identified recursion. App. Br. 10. Appellant argues identification of a recursion does not identify the 5 Appeal 2016-003486 Application 12/849,562 relationship that caused the recursion. Id. According to Appellant, 2BizBox’s color-coded identification of recursively listed components is ambiguous in connection with the relationship causing the recursion, e.g., whether it is a direct parent-child relationship between components or a grandchild-grandparent relationship. Id. Appellant argues that 2BizBox’s dotted lines between components is the same whether connecting recursive or non-recursive components and, therefore, cannot disclose identification of a relationship causing the recursion as required by claim 2. App. Br. 12. According to Appellant, rather than the system identifying or highlighting the argued relationship, “identification ... is left as an activity for a user.” Id. The Examiner responds by finding under a broad but reasonable construction that 2BizBox’s “waterfall listing displaying [item number] ‘054563045’ twice and coloring it [red to indicate recursion] would be an identification of a relationship that causes the recursion.” Ans. 5. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention. Claim 2 recites “identifying a relation that causes the recursion.” By identifying the recursively-related parent and child components in a waterfall listing, not only is the recursion identified but the relationship causing the recursion as represented by the waterfall diagram is also identified. That is, 2BizBox’s waterfall diagram begins and ends with a red-colored icon indicating the recursive component, with intervening dotted lines and blue-colored icons identifying the relationship that causes the recursion (e.g., each new dotted line moving further down and to the right to indicate a successive generation). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35U.S.C. § 102(b). 6 Appeal 2016-003486 Application 12/849,562 Claims 3 and 13 The Examiner finds 2BizBox’s updating of a BOM discloses severing the relationship that causes the recursion. Final Act. 7—8; Ans. 6. Appellant contends “nothing in the reference discloses explicitly that which the Examiner has characterized as the relation (the dotted line reflected in the waterfall listing) is severed by virtue of the editing of the recursive BOM.” App. Br. 13. We agree with Appellant. In the absence of any specific detail concerning what is meant by updating the BOM, modification of a BOM as disclosed by 2BizBox by deleting or severing relationships causing a recursion is not anticipated under § 102, regardless of whether it would have been obvious under § 103. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by 2BizBox. Claims 4 and 14 The Examiner finds 2BizBox’s message description that “You can click on the link ‘BOM’, go to the BOM Detail and update it” discloses the step of accepting modifications to the virtual product structure through the “graphical user interface” as recited by clams 4 and 14. Final Act. 8. Appellant contends any modifications are made through a separate environment and not through the graphical user interface displaying the waterfall representation. App. Br. 14. The Examiner finds “the ability to audit and then update a Recursive BOM would as reasonably constructed by one of ordinary skill require the use of a GUI and accepting the modification.” Ans. 6. Appellant provides insufficient evidence or argument to persuade us any modifications are made without going through the graphical user interface. Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are 7 Appeal 2016-003486 Application 12/849,562 unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Attorney argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Instead, we find the Examiner’s findings to be reasonable and supported by the cited portions of 2BizBox. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claim 5 The Examiner finds 2BizBox’s display of part numbers discloses defining a distinct representation for each source type of data contributing to the virtual product structure as required by claims 5 and 9. Final Act. 20. Appellant contends “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand different source types to refer to the type of source from which the data contributing to the virtual product structure was derived” and “[njothing in the [2BizBox] reference teaches or suggests that the different colors, red and blue, used for elements in the waterfall listing is in any manner indicative of the source from which the data was derived.” App. Br. 14. The Examiner responds by finding the “[product] numbers that identify the various items (i.e., description of the element) . . . can represent, as reasonably constructed, source type of data that contributes to the virtual product structure.” Ans. 3. We agree with Appellant. The Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning explaining why the disputed source type is disclosed by a product identification number or any of the coloring or symbology described by 2BizBox. For example, Appellant correctly points out that the same part number (0300000151) is blue in some instances and red in others. 2BizBox 3; App. Br. 15—16. Absent sufficient evidence that the Examiner’s 8 Appeal 2016-003486 Application 12/849,562 broad construction is reasonable and consistent with the Specification, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claim 6 Our decision not to sustain the rejection of claim 5 is dispositive of the rejection of claim 6 which is dependent from claim 5. Accordingly, we likewise do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claim 8 Appellant argues the patentability of claim 8 on the same basis as that of claim 3 (App. Br. 16), i.e., failure of 2BizBox to disclose severing of a relation as an option of an update (App. Br. 13). However, in contrast to claim 3, claim 8 instead recites a tool to modify a relationship, not sever a relationship as recited by claim 3. Accordingly, Appellant’s severing argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 8 and is, therefore, unpersuasive of Examiner error. Instead, we agree with the Examiner in finding 2BizBox’s feature of updating a BOM discloses the argued tool to modify a relationship within the representation of the virtual product structure. See Final Act. 9. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claim 9 Claim 9 recites limitations corresponding to those recited by claim 5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 5. Claim 10 The Examiner finds 2BizBox’s waterfall listing with the same red- colored product at the beginning and end along with intervening dotted lines and blue-colored components discloses the claimed highlighting module to 9 Appeal 2016-003486 Application 12/849,562 highlight a relationship in the virtual product structure causing the recursion. Final Act. 10. Appellant argues the rejection is improper because “[a]t no point is any of the dotted lines highlighted in the [2BizBox] reference.” App. Br. 16. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error. The Specification explains that “as used herein, highlighting is deemed to include any manner in which the recursion can be made to stand out from the remainder of the structure. For example, color changes, font changes, style changes, etc.” Spec. 116. Appellant provides insufficient evidence or reasoning explaining why 2BizBox’s waterfall fails to disclose the argued highlighting module. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 15 and 16 Appellant contends the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is improper because, in 2BizBox, “there is no disclosure that the elements represented as either red or blue can reasonably be construed as a different source type or a different source group” as respectively required by the claims. Addressing the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice that the argued limitations of claims 15 and 16 are “notoriously old and well known in the computing arts” (Final Act. 11), Appellant argues “the Examiner is obligated to provide documentary support for things that are not of an unquestionable nature.” App. Br. 18. In response, the Examiner cites to Hinton et al. (US 2009/0138843 Al; May 28, 2009). Ans. 8. Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s provision of documentary support for the Official Notice. Accordingly, in the absence of persuasive rebuttal, we sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 10 Appeal 2016-003486 Application 12/849,562 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3, 5, 6, 9, and 13. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10- 12, and 14—16. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation