Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 12, 201511741385 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SHYH-KWEI CHEN, JOACHIM H. FRANK, JANA KOEHLER, HUI LEI, and MICHAEL SEBASTIAN WAHLER ____________ Appeal 2012-004378 Application 11/741,385 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1 and 25–46 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-004378 Application 11/741,385 2 THE INVENTION The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method and apparatus for observation model validation (Spec., para. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for validating an observation model, the method comprising: receiving the observation model at a validation engine; identifying a constraint applicable to the observation model; classifying the applicable constraint by at least one computer processor, wherein the step of classifying the applicable constraint determines that the applicable constraint is a global uniqueness constraint or a global cyclic dependency constraint; and validating the observation model dependent on the constraint category of the applicable constraint, wherein the step of validating the observation model comprises executing a classification-based validation algorithm; and outputting the validated observation model from the validation engine to a monitoring engine; wherein the step of receiving the observation model comprises (a) reading at least one model element from the observation model to the validation engine, and the step of identifying comprises (b) identifying a constraint applicable to the at least one model element, and the step of validating comprises (c) validating the at least one model element dependent on the constraint category of the constraint applicable to the at least one model element; and further comprising the step of checking for further model elements to read from the observation model to the validation engine and, if at least one further element is present, performing steps (a), (b) and (c). App. Br. 1213. Appeal 2012-004378 Application 11/741,385 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Mark Richters and Martin Gogolla, Validating UML Models and OCL Constraints, 1939 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 265277 (2000) (hereinafter “Richters”). Object Management Group, OMG UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE SPECIFICATION, 109122, 277279, 297300 (2003) (hereinafter “OMG”). Elita Miliauskaité and Lina Nemuraité, Representation of Integrity Constraints in Conceptual Models, Kansas University of Technology, Information Technology and Control, Vol. 34, No. 4, 355365 (2005) (hereinafter “Miliauskaité”). The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Richters and OMG. 2. Claims 25–46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Richters and Miliauskaité. FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1. 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2012-004378 Application 11/741,385 4 ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation that “the step of classifying the applicable constraint determines that the applicable constraint is a global uniqueness constraint or a global cyclic dependency constraint” (claim 1). (App. Br. 6–9, Reply Br. 1–4). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is found in Richter’s page 267 (para. 2), Figure 2; and OMG at sections 2.5.3.1 (rule [1]), 2.5.3.5 (rule [1]), 2.5.3.26 (rule [1]), pages 2–220 (rule [1]), pages 2–240 (para. 2), and pages 2–241 (rule [6]). (Ans. 7–8) We agree with the Appellants. The cited claim limitation requires that in the step of classifying the applicable constraint “determines that the applicable constraint is a global uniqueness constraint or a global cyclic dependency constraint” (claim 1) (emphasis added). Here, the above cited citations to the prior art do not show this. For example, OMG at section 2.5.3.1 discloses that association ends must have a “unique name” but there is no disclosure related to the claimed classification step between a global uniqueness constraint or a global cyclic dependency constrain. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. The Appellants also argue that the rejection of claim 25 is improper because the cited prior art does not disclose “the classification of the constraint is determined based, at least in part, on a locality condition formulated in the constraint,” as set forth in that claim. (App. Br. 9–10). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is found in Miliauskaité at Table 1 and Figure 2. (Ans. 9). Appeal 2012-004378 Application 11/741,385 5 We agree with the Appellants. The above cited prior art citations simply do not show the above cited claim limitation. For instance, Miliauskaité’s Figure 2 does disclose “Constraints on Relationships” but no classifying based on a locality condition. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 25 and its dependent claims 2632. The remaining independent claims 33 and 40 contain a similar limitation and we do not sustain the rejection of these claims and their respective dependent claims 3439 and 4146 as well for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above. DECISION The Examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 1 and 25–46 is reversed. REVERSED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation