Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 1, 2021

2020005481 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2021)

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. 15/034,241 05/04/2016 Alkiviadis SIMITSIS 90202734 6015 146568 7590 12/01/2021 MICRO FOCUS LLC 500 Westover Drive #12603 Sanford, NC 27330 EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2021 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): software.ip.mail@microfocus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALKIVIADIS SIMITSIS and WILLIAM K. WILKINSON Appeal 2020-005481 Application 15/034,241 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1–20 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act. 1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Micro Focus, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed May 4, 2016 (claiming benefit of PCT/US2013/076477, filed Dec. 19, 2013); Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Feb. 24, 2020; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed July 20, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action Appeal 2020-005481 Application 15/034,241 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally relates to “[p]rocessing a hybrid flow containing a continuous flow.” Abstr. More specifically, Appellant’s claimed subject matter is directed to a machine- readable media, systems, and methods for processing hybrid flows that contain a continuous flow, where the system includes a processor and a memory, which stores instructions that when executed convert a hybrid flow to a data flow graph. The hybrid flow includes a continuous flow as well as a finite flow. An output of the continuous flow is connected to an input of the finite flow in the data flow graph using a continuous connector operator, and the system processes the data flow graph (i.e., converts the hybrid flow). See Spec. ¶¶ 1, 7, 8; Abstr. Claim 1 (directed to a system), claim 8 (directed to a computer-readable medium), and claim 12 (directed to a method) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for processing hybrid flows containing a continuous flow, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory to store instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: convert a hybrid flow to a data flow graph, wherein the hybrid flow includes a continuous flow and a finite flow; and connect an output of the continuous flow to an input of the finite flow in the data flow graph using a continuous connector operator; and (“Final Act.”), mailed Oct. 4, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”), mailed May 21, 2020. Appeal 2020-005481 Application 15/034,241 3 process the data flow graph of the hybrid flow. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ozone et al. (“Ozone”) US 2006/0048113 A1 Mar. 2, 2006 Moyers et al. (“Moyers”) US 2012/0254858 A1 Oct. 4, 2012 REJECTIONS3 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozone. See Final Act. 4–14. 3. The Examiner rejects claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ozone and Moyers. See Final Act. 14–16. ANALYSIS Anticipation Rejection The Examiner rejects claim 1 (as well as independent claims 8 and 12, and dependent claims 2–7, 9–11, 13–17 and 20) as being anticipated by Ozone. See Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 3–5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that various portions of Ozone disclose a hybrid flow that contains a continuous 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the present application has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2020-005481 Application 15/034,241 4 flow and a finite flow. See Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 3–5 (citing Ozone ¶¶ 9, 11, 72, 90, 94, 105, 126, 127, 216; Figs. 10, 14). Appellant contends that Ozone does not disclose the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8–11; Reply Br. 1–3. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner-cited portions of Ozone do not discuss a hybrid flow that includes a continuous flow and a finite flow. Id. More specifically, Appellant contends that the Examiner misinterprets the disputed limitation: a “continuous flow” to be a “subprogram executing sequentially” is an arbitrary construction, as no reasoning has been set forth by the Final Office Action to explain why a sequentially executing program is a “continuous flow.” Likewise, construing a finite flow to a “total number of subprograms” is an arbitrary labeling. As described in the Specification, “a continuous flow” can include a data stream about events and is “continuous (e.g., does not stop).” Specification, para no. [0007]. Appeal Br. 10. To anticipate, a prior art reference must “disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, and it must disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). See Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Manual Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2131. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not persuasively shown that Ozone discloses the recited hybrid flow including a continuous flow (and a finite flow) or processing the hybrid flow as set forth in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8–11; Reply Br. 1–3. In particular, the Examiner has not clearly mapped any disclosure in Ozone to the recited continuous flow, or Appeal 2020-005481 Application 15/034,241 5 explained how sequential processing equates to a continuous data stream, or how such a continuous data stream could be processed. See, e.g., Ozone ¶¶ 9, 72, 216; Fig. 14). Even if we were to find that Ozone discloses a hybrid flow according to the Examiner’s construction (see Ans. 4—an analytical flow that partitions into fragments), in that Ozone discloses data flow graph (DFG) flow data processed by subprograms (see Ozone ¶¶ 126, 127; Fig. 14), the Examiner doesn’t explain how the DFG flow data includes a continuous flow. Rather, the Examiner points to a step in the sequential processing that may be performed multiple times (a loop process). See Ans. 4–5; Ozone ¶¶ 94, 105, 126, 127, 216; Fig. 14. As pointed out by Appellant, even if we assume a loop back process is performed, and that such a process is a “flow,” Ozone does not disclose that such a process is performed an infinite (i.e., continuous and unending) number of times. See Reply Br. 2. Thus, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner-cited portions of Ozone do not disclose the disputed features of claim 1 (and the other pending claims). Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding Ozone anticipates Appellant’s independent claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 12 include limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2–7, 9–11, 13–17, and 20 depend from and stand with their respective base claims. Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions persuade us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1–17 and 20, and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Obviousness Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 18 and 19 as obvious over Ozone and Moyers. See Final Act. 14–16. In the rejection, the Examiner relies on Appeal 2020-005481 Application 15/034,241 6 Ozone to teach a hybrid flow including a continuous flow (supra). As discussed with respect to claim 1 (supra), Ozone does not teach these features and functionality. The Examiner does not find that Moyers cures the deficiencies of Ozone (supra). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 18 and 19 for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 (supra). CONCLUSION Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–17 and 20 as being anticipated by Ozone under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Appellant has also shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–17, 20 102 Ozone 1–17, 20 18, 19 103 Ozone, Moyers 18, 19 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED