Ex Parte Ogilvie et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201711231387 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/231,387 09/20/2005 Brian K. Ogilvie 0069-0302 7675 76044 7590 06/01/2017 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP 11350 RANDOM HILLS RD. SUITE 600 FAIRFAX, VA 22030 EXAMINER VU, TUAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2193 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2017 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): docket@harrityllp.com mpick@harrityllp.com ptomail @ harrity lip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN K. OGILVIE, CHARLES J. DEVANE, KIRAN KUMAR KINTALI, and DONALD PAUL OROFINO II Appeal 2015-007574 Application 11/231,3871 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—7, 9, 11, 13, 15—19, 21—25, 27, 29—33, 35—41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants’ Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies The MathWorks, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2015-007574 Application 11/231,387 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants describe their invention as follows: The computer-aided design of physical systems is an iterative process in which the designer frequently makes multiple revisions to the model before finalizing the model. The illustrative embodiment of the present invention allows these revisions to be made upon an intermediate representation (IR) of the graphical model and then converts the altered IR to a graphical model for review and simulation by the designer. The mechanism of altering the IR and then generating a new or updated graphical model based on the IR allows both the altering and review of the model to take place more efficiently and in a more customizable fashion than conventional methods of converting the graphical model into a final intended target language for review or simulation. Spec. 4,11. 13-22. The claims under appeal are directed to systems and methods for transforming graphical models. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: providing a first graphical model representing a system, the first graphical model being in a source language compatible with a graphical programming environment; converting, with a computing device, the first graphical model into an intermediate representation (IR), data contained in the IR being non-specific to the source language of the first graphical model, and converting the first graphical model into the IR including: generating records associated with the IR, the records describing blocks and connections analyzed from a source file associated with the first graphical model; performing an optimization transformation on the IR to produce an altered IR by exposing the IR to another 2 Appeal 2015-007574 Application 11/231,387 programming environment, the other programming environment being different from the graphical programming environment, and producing the altered IR altering the records associated with the IR, the altered records including information that indicates modifications that produce the altered IR; and generating, using the computing device, a second graphical model based on the first graphical model and the altered records. App. Br. 38 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Raghavan et al. US 2003/0046658 A1 Mar. 6, 2003 The MathWorks, Stateflow® andStateflow® Coder User’s Guide Version 5, July 2002 (“MW_SFC5”) The MathWorks, Simulink®, Using Simulink Version 5, Apr. 2003 (“Simulink V5”). Coleman et al., Optimization Toolbox for Use with Matlab® User’s Guide Version 2, Jan. 1999 (“Coleman”). REJECTIONS Claims 27, 35, 40, and 41 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 19 and 20 of copending Application Number 11879322 (hereinafter '322) in view of MW_SFC5 (chp. 1—15 and Appendix), Ramamoorthy et al, US 7,340,684, Simulink V5, and Coleman, 3 Appeal 2015-007574 Application 11/231,387 Claims 1—7, 9, 11, 13, 15—19, 21—25, 27, 29—33, and 35—41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over MW_SFC5, Raghavan, Simulink V5, and Coleman. ISSUES Double-Patenting Rejection At the outset, we observe that Appellants present no arguments on appeal regarding the Examiner’s provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 27, 35, 40, and 41. See Final Act. 19- 24. We note that arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, we pro forma affirm the Examiner’s provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 27, 35, 40, and 41. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited combination teaches or suggests “performing an optimization transformation on the IR to produce an altered IR by exposing the IR to another programming environment,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner relies primarily on MW_SFC5, finding it teaches “performing an optimization transformation on the IR to produce an altered IR.” Final Act. 4 (citing MW_SFC5 pp. 5— 4 Appeal 2015-007574 Application 11/231,387 642, 2—20, 3—32, 7-45, and 2—7). The Examiner further finds MW_SFC5 teaches “exposing the IR to another programming environment, the other programming environment being different from the graphical programming environment,” variously citing pages 8—23, 8—25, A-83, A-9, 1—2, 1—4, 3—5, 12—1, and 12—28. Final Act. 5. Thus, the Examiner finds MW_SFC5 separately discloses “performing an optimization transformation on the IR to produce an altered IR” and “exposing the IR to another programming environment, the other programming environment being different from the graphical programming environment.” The Examiner finds MW_SFC5 does not disclose that the optimization transformation is performed by exposing the IR to another programming environment. Final Act. 6—7. The Examiner relies on Raghavan, Simulink V5, and Coleman to teach this limitation. Final Act. 7—8. According to the Examiner, the remaining references teach that “the intermediate representation . . . can be exposed and further altered accordingly, for analysis, problem solving or optimization.” Final Act 8. Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown that any of the cited references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests “performing an optimization transformation on the IR to produce an altered IR by exposing the IR to another programming environment.” App. Br. 9—16. Appellants generally argue that while the portions of Raghavan, Simulink V5, and Coleman cited by the Examiner generally relate to simulation and optimization of models, none of them have any disclosure or suggestion of 2 The pagination in MW_SFC5 is formulated with the chapter number followed by a page number within the chapter. Thus, page “5—64” is the 64th page in chapter 5. 3 The “A” in page “A-8” indicates the page is from the glossary at the end of the reference. 5 Appeal 2015-007574 Application 11/231,387 “producing an altered IR by exposing it to another programming environment.” App. Br. 9—16. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the cited combination teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “producing an altered IR by exposing it to another programming environment.” The Examiner’s analysis cites dozens of separate portions of the cited references but does not sufficiently explain how the various distinct teachings set forth in those separate portions of the cited references, would have been tied together to render claim 1 obvious. For example, the Examiner finds the act of reducing a complex chart into subcharts as described at 5—64 of MW_SFC5 discloses the limitation “performing an optimization transformation on the IR to produce an altered IR.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner never explains, however, how or where the complex chart (i.e., “the IR”) is exposed to another programming environment to effectuate the reduction (i.e., “the optimization transformation”) to subcharts (i.e., “an altered IR”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor do we sustain the rejections of independent claims 25, 31, 40, and 41 which each recite the same limitation. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2—7, 9, 11, 13, 15—19, 21—24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 35—39. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—7, 9, 11, 13, 15—19, 21—25, 27, 29—33, and 35—41 is reversed. 6 Appeal 2015-007574 Application 11/231,387 The Examiner’s provisional rejection of claims 27, 35, 40, and 41 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation