Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2015

11741385 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015)

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. 1213.

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 265277 (2000)
(hereinafter “Richters”).
Object Management Group, OMG UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE
SPECIFICATION, 109122, 277279, 297300 (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, 355365 (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 2632. 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 3439 and 4146 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