Ex Parte Charters et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2009

10093466 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GRAHAM C. CHARTERS, AMANDA E. CHESSELL, VERNON
M. GREEN, CATHERINE S. GRIFFIN, and DAVID J. VINES
____________

Appeal 2008-2680
Application 10/093,466
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided:1 February 23, 2009
____________
Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
1
Appeal No. 2008-2680
Application 10/093,466

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-6 and 44-52, which are all of the claims remaining in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections against claims 1-6 and 44-52.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a data processing method, computer
program product, and system for running a workflow application in a data
processing system. The workflow application is represented by a workflow
graph of interconnected executable components (Figs. 2-3; Spec. 3:19-4:7).
Process representations are provided for the workflow application in the
workflow graph having inputs, outputs and executable components, and one
or more of said executable components includes a compensation pair having
a primary task and a compensation task (Fig. 5; Spec. 21:4-15). At least one
of the process representations is associated with a successful and
unsuccessful completion step to indicate success or failure (Fig. 5; Spec.
22:1-20). The primary task of one of the executable components is executed
in accordance with the workflow graph to produce a result. The successful
or unsuccessful completion step is executed based on the result of the
primary task. In response to execution of the unsuccessful completion step,
the compensation task is executed in the compensation pair. In response to
execution of the successful completion step, the result of the primary task is
executed in the compensation pair. (Figs. 5-6; Spec. 21:4 - 22:20; Spec.
23:4 - 26:18).
2

Appeal No. 2008-2680
Application 10/093,466

Representative Claim
1. A data processing method for running a workflow application in a
data processing system, said workflow application represented by a
workflow graph of interconnected executable components, the method
comprising:

providing process representations for said workflow application in
said workflow graph having inputs, outputs and executable components, one
or more of said executable components including a compensation pair
having a primary task and a compensation task;

associating with at least one of said process representations a
successful and unsuccessful completion step to indicate success or failure
thereof;

executing the primary task of one of said executable components in
accordance with the workflow graph to produce a result;

executing said successful or unsuccessful completion step based on
the result of said primary task;

in response to execution of said unsuccessful completion step,
executing said compensation task in the compensation pair; and

in response to execution of said successful completion step
committing the result of said primary task in said compensation pair.

Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability.
Davis US 5,870,545 Feb. 9, 1999
Chaar US 5,960,404 Sep. 28, 1999

3

Appeal No. 2008-2680
Application 10/093,466

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-6 and 44-52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chaar and Davis.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Chaar and Davis teaches or suggests: “associating with at
least one of said process representations a successful and unsuccessful
completion step to indicate success or failure thereof; executing the primary
task of one of said executable components in accordance with the workflow
graph to produce a result; [and] executing said successful or unsuccessful
completion step based on the result of said primary task,” as required by
claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Chaar
1. Chaar discloses a task request, which is a message that contains
a service request sought by a source from a performer (col. 7, ll. 6-15).
2. The performer receives the task request, sees that the task is
completed, and sends a task response message to the source (col. 7, ll.
46-56).
4

Appeal No. 2008-2680
Application 10/093,466

3. Chaar does not disclose executing a compensation task in
response to execution of an unsuccessful completion step (Ans. 6).
Davis
4. Fig. 8 of Davis includes an executable component shown by
nodes 155-160. The nodes have a primary task of configuring a route
between two end Add Drop Multiplexers (ADMs) and a compensation task
of resetting the nodes if configuring the route is unsuccessful (col. 11, l.
34 - col. 12, l. 15).
5. A successful completion step fa6 and an unsuccessful
completion step ra1 are associated with the network configuration
management process represented by element 149 (Fig. 8; col. 12, ll. 11-13).
6. The primary task of configuring a route is executed by
executable component 155-160 to produce a result (Fig. 8; col. 11, l.
67 - col. 12, l. 13).
7. Based on the result, either the successful completion step fa6 or
the unsuccessful completion step ra1 is executed (Fig. 8; col. 11, l. 67 - col.
12, l. 13).
8. In response to executing the unsuccessful completion step ra1,
the compensation task of resetting the executable component 155-160 is
performed (Fig. 8; col. 12, ll. 11-13).
9. In response to executing the successful completion step fa6, the
result of the primary task is committed by updating customer and
configuration databases (Fig. 8; col. 12, ll. 11-15).

5

Appeal No. 2008-2680
Application 10/093,466

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the
broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d
575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17-18 (1966).
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that “neither of the references teaches or suggests
associating with at least one of process representation a successful and
unsuccessful completion step to indicate success or failure thereof, executing
6

Appeal No. 2008-2680
Application 10/093,466

the primary task of one of said executable components in accordance with
the workflow graph to produce a result and executing said successful or
unsuccessful completion step based on the result of said primary task” (Br.
7-8).
However, Davis discloses an executable component including a
primary task of configuring a route (FF 4) and a compensation task of
resetting nodes if the route is not configured successfully (FF 4). A
successful completion step and an unsuccessful completion step are
associated with at least one of the process representations (FF 5). The
primary task of configuring the route is executed by the executable
component to produce a result (FF 6). Based on the result of the primary
task, either the successful completion step or the unsuccessful completion
step is executed (FF 7). In response to executing the unsuccessful
completion step, the compensation task of resetting the nodes is performed
(FF 8). In response to executing the successful completion step, the result of
the primary task is committed by updating customer and configuration
databases (FF 9).
We therefore agree with the Examiner that the combination of Chaar
and Davis teaches “associating with at least one of said process
representations a successful and unsuccessful completion step to indicate
success or failure thereof; executing the primary task of one of said
executable components in accordance with the workflow graph to produce a
result; [and] executing said successful or unsuccessful completion step based
on the result of said primary task,” as recited in claim 1.
7

Appeal No. 2008-2680
Application 10/093,466

Appellants contend that “both references relied on by the Examiner
are directed to compensation groups containing many processes, and not a
primary task as in the claimed invention.” To support the distinction
between compensation groups and a primary task, Appellants cite page 6 of
the Specification, which discusses compensation groups (Br. 8). However,
this page states that a component of a compensation group is “a
compensation pair comprising a primary task and a compensating task.”
(Spec. 6:19-23).
Even if we were to agree with Appellants’ contention that “both
references relied on by the Examiner are directed to compensation groups”
as “discussed in detail” in Appellants’ Specification, this means that both
references disclose a primary task (Spec. 6; see also FF 1, 4, 6).
Furthermore, Appellants have explicitly said that “the present invention
provides greater flexibility in defining compensation groups” (Spec. 7:21-
23). Therefore, Appellants attempt to distinguish the invention from the
prior art by contending that the prior art is directed to compensation groups
and not a primary task is unpersuasive.
Appellants contend that there is “no teaching in either of the
references that would suggest making the combination disclosed in
Applicants’ invention” (Br. 8). However, this contention fails to address the
Examiner’s finding that the combination would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to flexibly and
efficiently compensate a structurally complex workflow process as
suggested by Davis (Ans. 7).

8

Appeal No. 2008-2680
Application 10/093,466

We therefore agree with the Examiner that the combination of Chaar
and Davis teaches the invention of claim 1. Appellants have failed to
present a convincing rebuttal to the Examiner’s prima facie case.
Appellants have failed to separately argue claims 2-6 and 44-52.
Instead, Appellants have reproduced claim language and made general
allegations that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous.
Even if the remarks directed to claims other than claim 1 were deemed
to rise to the level of arguments for separately patentability, we would still
not be persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection because the remarks do
not show any error in the Examiner’s findings in support of the rejection.
For the rejection of claim 2, Appellants reproduce the language of the
claim and allege that the combination of Chaar and Davis fails to disclose
the invention for preventing failures and time-outs. However, this allegation
fails to address the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Chaar and
Davis does disclose the elements of claim 2 (Ans. 7-8, 17-18). Appellants
have failed to show error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
For the rejection of claim 3, Appellants make a general statement that
the rejection is erroneous without specifically identifying any error in the
rejection. Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 3.
For the rejection of claim 4, Appellants make a general statement that
the rejection is erroneous without specifically identifying any error in the
rejection. Appellants also make an argument that “Chaar in view of Davis is
incapable of associating a successful completion step with an output of an
inner process.” (Br. 9). This argument is unsupported by evidence and is
9

Appeal No. 2008-2680
Application 10/093,466

therefore unpersuasive. Appellants have failed to show error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
For the rejections of claims 5-6, Appellants make general statements
that the rejections are erroneous without specifically identifying any errors
in the rejections. Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 5-6.
For the rejection of claim 44, Appellants allege that the combination
of Chaar and Davis provides for compensation spheres as disclosed in the
prior art and there is no teaching for undoing actions based on successful and
unsuccessful completion steps based on a primary task. This allegation is
factually incorrect (FF 4-9). This allegation also fails to address the
Examiner’s findings that the combination does disclose the elements of
claim 44 (Ans. 11, 20). Appellants have failed to show error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 44.
For the rejections of claims 45-52, Appellants make general
allegations that the rejections are erroneous without specifically identifying
any errors in the rejections. Appellants have failed to show error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 45-52.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Chaar and Davis teaches or suggests “associating with at
least one of said process representations a successful and unsuccessful
completion step to indicate success or failure thereof; executing the primary
task of one of said executable components in accordance with the workflow
10

Appeal No. 2008-2680
Application 10/093,466

graph to produce a result; [and] executing said successful or unsuccessful
completion step based on the result of said primary task,” as required by
claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-6 and 44-52 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

pgc

David A. Mims, Jr.
IBM Corp, IP Law
11400 Burnett Road, Zip 4054
Austin TX 78758
11