SIEMENS PRODUCT LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 2021

2019004435 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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. 14/707,532 05/08/2015 Steven Robert Jankovich 2015P05291US 6063 45113 7590 03/02/2021 Siemens Corporation IP Dept - Mail Code INT-244 3850 Quadrangle Blvd Orlando, FL 32817 EXAMINER CASILLAS, ROLAND J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2021 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): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte STEVEN ROBERT JANKOVICH, and DAREN RHOADES, ____________________ Appeal 2019-004435 Application 14/707,5321 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1−7, 9−17, 19, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant’s invention is a CAD system to visually manipulate objects responsive to inputs through a touch screen. Connected objects will have a constraint that corresponds to a functional association (controlled via a 1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 8 and 18 have been cancelled. Appeal 2019-004435 Application 14/707,532 2 software component), in which properties of the object are inherited by properties of the group. Spec. ¶ 61. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A system for object connection breaking comprising: a display device; an input device; at least one processor configured to: cause the display device to display a plurality of connected objects, wherein the plurality of connected objects include two-dimensional (2D) computer-aided design (CAD) objects or three-dimensional (3D) CAD objects that are directly connected to and abut each other to form complex 2D or 3D structures, and wherein each connection includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional association between the connected objects so that object properties are inherited between the connected objects and causes motion of one object to affect the position, shape, or orientation of a connected object; receive at least one selection input through the input device representative of a selection of a first one of the connected objects while a second one of the connected objects remains unselected, wherein the second object has an initial shape at an initial position, wherein the first object has an initial position; responsive to first motion inputs received through the input device representative of the selected first object being moved with a first motion that does not have a predetermined motion characteristic, maintain a connection between the first and second object while changing positions of the first object and the second object, such that the second object no longer has one of either the initial shape or the initial position of the second object, wherein the entire second object moves with movement of the first object prior to the connection between the first and second objects being broken so that the first object and second object together behave as a single complex structure; and responsive to second motion inputs received through the input device representative of the selected first object being moved with a second motion that has the predetermined motion characteristic, break the connection between the first and second objects, cause a current shape and position of the second object to correspond to Appeal 2019-004435 Application 14/707,532 3 the initial shape and position of the second object while the current position of the first object does not correspond to the initial position of the first object, and delete the at least one constraint. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Maunder US 2013/0335339 Al Dec. 19, 2013 Christensen 4,663,616 May 5, 1987 Cleron et al. US 8,601,561 Bl Dec. 3, 2013 Rives et al. US 2011/0258537 Al Oct. 20, 2011 Claims 1, 2, 7, 10−12, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maunder and Christensen. Final Act. 3. Claims 3−6 and 13−16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maunder, Christensen, and Cleron. Final Act. 15. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maunder, Christensen, Cleron, and Rives. Final Act. 20. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Feb. 18, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 16, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 21, 2019) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Maunder and Christensen teach or suggest that each connection between objects includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional association between the connected objects so that object properties are inherited between the connected objects? Appeal 2019-004435 Application 14/707,532 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 7, 10−12, 17, and 20 Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, causing a display device to display a plurality of connected objects, “wherein each connection includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional association between the connected objects so that object properties are inherited between the connected objects and causes motion of one object to affect the position, shape, or orientation of a connected object.” The other two independent claims (11 and 20) recite the same limitation. The Examiner finds that Maunder “implicitly teaches” that each connection includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional association between the connected objects so that object properties are inherited between the connected objects. Final Act. 4−5; Maunder ¶¶ 36, 65. The Examiner finds that Maunder teaches that “after creating a subtree (i.e. complex structure) the nodes within the subtree can be moved as a single object (i.e. Fig. 6).” Final Act. 5; Maunder ¶ 65. The Examiner further finds that Christensen teaches that each connection includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional association between the connected objects so that object properties are inherited between the connected objects. Final Act. 5; Christensen col. 1:13−55, col. 3:3−14, col. 6:10−14. Appellant argues that Maunder does not teach, or “implicitly” teach as the Examiner finds, a connection that acts as a functional association between connected object so that object properties are inherited. Appeal Br. 21. Appellant contends that Maunder does not mention any constraint or any Appeal 2019-004435 Application 14/707,532 5 functional association between object or nodes, and contends that’s Maunder does not describe anything being inherited between nodes. Appeal Br. 23. Appellant argues that Christensen similarly fails to teach or suggest any connection that includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional association between connected objects so that object properties are inherited. Appeal Br. 28. The Examiner, in the Answer, responds that Maunder teaches a system and interface for displaying and manipulating network topology graphs. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that the definition of network topology “carries associations between the nodes of the network (i.e. inherited properties).” Id. The Examiner finds that the topologies of Maunder “can be separate structures that can be combined to create a single structure including all of the properties of both structures (i.e. inheriting physical and/or logical association information with the connected nodes).” Id. With respect to Christensen, the Examiner responds that the reference teaches a “sticky” attribute that is “transferred to all connected objects . . . . If one of the object (sic) contains this ‘sticky’ attribute and is connected to another object not containing this attribute, the ‘sticky’ attribute is inherited.” Ans. 6. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Maunder teaches a connection that includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional association between connected objects so that object properties are inherited. Rather, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to identify a teaching of this limitation within Maunder. Turning to the portions of Maunder specifically cited by the Examiner, paragraph 36 concerns generating a network topology graph as a result of user input. While Appeal 2019-004435 Application 14/707,532 6 Maunder teaches that selected nodes may be manipulated on the graph as a unified set of nodes, we agree with Appellant that Maunder does not disclose a “functional association” between connected objects and does not disclose any inheritance of object properties. Reply Br. 15. Paragraph 65 of Maunder discloses only Maunder’s interface for connecting a node to other nodes, and does not supply the teachings missing from paragraph 36. The Examiner’s Answer states that Maunder teaches that its disclosed topology carries inherited properties between nodes, but cites to no evidence in Maunder that the reference actually teaches this limitation. Ans. 5. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the Wikipedia article cited by the Examiner in general support of his findings does not teach or suggest anything concerning inherited properties between nodes. Reply Br. 14. We also do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Christensen teaches a connection that includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional association between connected objects so that object properties are inherited. As mentioned supra, the Examiner cites to columns 1, 3, and 6 of Christensen. The section of column 1 cited describes only the prior art and the problem to be solved. Column 3 of Christensen describes assigning the “sticky” attribute to a box and moving that box to a new location. Column 6 of Christensen further describes the “sticky” attribute. As with Maunder, however, the Examiner does not cite to any evidence within Christensen indicating that Christensen actually teaches object properties being inherited between connected objects. Ans. 6. We agree with Appellant’s argument that “[i]n every case, [the] Christensen ‘sticky attribute’ must be set by the user,” and that there is no teaching or suggestion Appeal 2019-004435 Application 14/707,532 7 that the attribute is in any inherited or transferred between objects. Reply Br. 21. Because we find that neither Maunder nor Christensen teach or suggest that each connection includes at least one constraint that acts as a functional association between connected objects so that object properties are inherited between connected objects, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 10−12, 17, and 20. Claims 3−6 and 13−16 We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 from which claims 3−6 and 13−16 respectively depend. The Examiner does not point to teaching or suggestion in Cleron that would cure the deficiencies of Maunder and Christensen identified supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 3−6 and 13−16, for the same reasons expressed with respect to claims 1 and 11 supra. Claims 9 and 19 We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 from which claims 9 and 19 respectively depend. The Examiner does not point to teaching or suggestion in Cleron or Rives that would cure the deficiencies of Maunder and Christensen identified supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 9 and 19, for the same reasons expressed with respect to claims 1 and 11 supra. CONCLUSIONS The combination of Maunder and Christensen does not teach or suggest that each connection between objects includes at least one constraint Appeal 2019-004435 Application 14/707,532 8 that acts as a functional association between the connected objects so that object properties are inherited between the connected objects. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 7, 10−12, 17, 20 103 Maunder, Christensen 1, 2, 7, 10−12, 17, 20 3−6, 13−16 103 Maunder, Christensen, Cleron 3−6, 13−16 9, 19 103 Maunder, Christensen, Cleron, Rives 9, 19 Overall Outcome 1−7, 9−17, 19, 20 ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1−7, 9−17, 19, and 20 is reversed. REVERSED