Ex Parte Mattson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2018

13601132 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/601, 132 08/31/2012
45113 7590 06/25/2018
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Howard Charles Duncan Mattson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2012Pl5971US 4663
EXAMINER
MAPAR,BDAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2018 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 HOWARD CHARLES DUNCAN MATTSON,
DOUGLAS JOSEPH KING and MICHAEL JOHN GIBBENS 1
Appeal2017-008907
Application 13/601,132
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21, all the
pending claims in the present application. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are canceled
(see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants name Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. as
the real party in interest (App. Br. 4).
Appeal2017-008907
Application 13/601, 132
The present invention relates generally to product data management
(see Spec., Abstract).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for product data management, the method
performed by a data processing system and comprising:
receiving a CAD model in the data processing system, the CAD
model including a plurality of features and constraints, including optional
constraints;
receiving a user operation to manipulate a seed feature;
identifying a plurality of optional constraints corresponding to
the user operation, wherein the optional constraints are constraints that are
applied to the model only if the optional constraints do not prevent the user
operation from occurring;
sorting the optional constraints into an order in which the
optional constraints are to be applied;
applying a sorted optional constraint that is first in the order in
which the optional constraints are to be applied;
removing the applied sorted optional constraint from the
identified optional constraints, and repeating the sorting, applying, and
removing processes until all optional constraints have been applied;
performing the user operation according to the applied
constraints to produce a modified CAD model; and
storing the modified CAD model.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jayaram (US 2002/0123812 Al, Sept. 5,
2002), McDaniel (US 2006/0082571 Al, Apr. 20, 2006), and Berger (US
2005/0128211 Al, June 16, 2005);
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
2
Appeal2017-008907
Application 13/601, 132
ANALYSIS
Rejection under§ 103(a)
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Jayaram, McDaniel, and
Berger collectively teach or suggest optional constraints that are applied to
the model only if the optional constraints do not prevent the user operation
from occurring, as set forth in the claims?
Appellants contend that the cited paragraph in Berger "do not teach or
suggest the optional constraints as claimed [because] Berger's 'weak
constraint' is always applied ... [and] [t]his operation is not related to a user
operation to manipulate a seed feature" (App. Br. 16-17). Appellants
contend that "no combination of the references teaches optional constraints
as claimed" (id. at 18).
In response, the Examiner finds that "Berger's weak constraint is not
always applied - it is applied if it is not activated/armed, and it is not applied
if the cursor is not within the snap distance ... which alone are sufficient to
qualify the constraints as an 'optional constraint"' (Ans. 26) and "[t]hese
constraints clearly do not prevent user actions from occurring ... might
impede user actions ... [but] the user may pull off the constraint, if desired"
(id. at 27). The Examiner finds that "Berger's weal constraints will 'always'
be applied unless not armed or overcome by the user" (Ans. 27).
Even if we agree with the Examiner that Berger's weak constraint
qualifies as an "optional" constraint, i.e., may/may not be armed and/or the
user may pull off the constraint (see Berger i-fl58), the Examiner fails to
demonstrate that Berger's weak constraint corresponds to a user operation
and are applied only if it does not prevent the user operation from occurring.
Here, the "user operation" set forth in the claims includes "a user operation
3
Appeal2017-008907
Application 13/601, 132
to manipulate a seed feature" (see claim 1 ). However, the Examiner applied
Jayaram to teach a user operation to manipulate a seed feature (see Final
Act. 8), not Berger. Thus, we agree with Appellants that Berger's
"operation is not related to a user operation to manipulate a seed feature"
(App. Br. 16-17).
Even if we assume arguendo (without deciding) that J ayaram teaches
a user operation to manipulate a seed feature (as proffered by the Examiner),
we do not find, and the Examiner has not established, that Berger's optional
constraints corresponds to a user operation and are applied only if the
optional constraints do not prevent Jayaram's user operation to manipulate a
seed feature from occurring. In other words, we are particularly troubled by
the chain of causation that is split between the two references in the
Examiner's proffered combination of Jayaram and Berger. We are left with
the question of how precisely is Berger's optional constraint being applied
only if it does not prevent the user operation from occurring, when it does
not even suggest such a seed feature? Jayaram also lacks this specific
optional feature.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not
support the obviousness rejection. Since we agree with at least one of the
arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of
Appellants' other arguments. We, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection
of independent claims 1, 8, 15, or the rejection of claims 3-7, 19-14, and
17-21 which are dependent thereon, each of which contain the argued
limitations.
4
Appeal2017-008907
Application 13/601, 132
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection.
REVERSED
5