Ex Parte Aberg et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2012

10268541 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2012)

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.
10/268,541 10/10/2002 Robert Olson Aberg MWS-045 1676
74321 7590 02/01/2012
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH/THE MATHWORKS
FLOOR 30, SUITE 3000
One Post Office Square
Boston, MA 02109-2127
EXAMINER
SAXENA, AKASH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT OLSON ABERG, VIJAYA RAGHAVAN,
and YAO REN
____________________

Appeal 2009-010069
Application 10/268,541
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.

Appeal 2009-010069
Application 10/268,541

2
Appellants’ invention is directed to:

A method of specifying a truth table includes generating
a block diagram model, generating a statechart in the block
diagram model, selecting a truth table graphical function in
the statechart, and applying a set of graphical semantics for
logic specification to the truth table graphical function
combined with textual language predicates and actions.
(Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of specifying a truth table comprising:

generating a block diagram model;

generating a statechart in the block diagram model;

selecting a truth table graphical function in the statechart;
and

applying a set of graphical semantics for logic
specification to the truth table graphical function combined
with textual language predicates and actions.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-6, 12-14, 17-21, 26, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination
of IEEE article "Automated Code Generation from Graphical,
Reusable Templates" by Chester Dellen et al. (hereinafter
“Dellen”) and Watkins (US 5,220,512).
Appeal 2009-010069
Application 10/268,541

3
2. Claims 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Dellen, Watkins, and
Marmelstein (US 5,187,788).
3. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Dellen, Watkins,
and the IEEE article "Automated Validation of Software
Models" by Steve Sims (hereinafter “Sims”).
4. Claims 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Dellen, Watkins, and the
IEEE article "An interactive tool for design, simulation,
verification, and synthesis of protocols" by Daniel Y. Chao
(hereinafter “Chao”).

ISSUE (1)
Under §103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
combination of Dellen and Watkins would have taught or
suggested selecting a truth table graphical function in the
statechart, within the meaning of independent claims 1, 19, 26,
and 27?

Grouping of Claims
Appellants have argued the obviousness rejection of claims 1-6,
12-14, 17-18, 26 and 27 as a single group. We select independent claim 1 as
the representative claim for this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-010069
Application 10/268,541

4
Appellants have argued the obviousness rejection of claims 19-21 as a
single group. We select independent claim 19 as the representative claim for
this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the cited references fail to teach or suggest a
truth table graphical function. (App. Br. 11). In particular, Appellants
contend that the truth table, “is not a function as it is not named and callable;
rather the truth table of Dellen is a mere tabular tool for specifying control
structure to assist in automatically generating instructions.” (App. Br 11).
Appellants further aver that the flow chart of Dellen is not executable and
does not contain functions, as graphical functions. (Id.). We disagree for
essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner. (Ans. 13).
At the outset, we conclude that claim 1 does not require that the “truth
table graphical function” is executable, and we will not endeavor to read this
limitation into the claim language. “[A] particular embodiment appearing in
the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language
is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises,
Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(citation omitted). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner’s broader reading of the claimed “truth table graphical
function” on the cited combination of references. (Ans. 13-14).
Dellen teaches that the Truth Table (Fig. 5) is supported as a
Flowchart process block. (Dellen para. [37]). Therefore, we agree with
Examiner that Dellen at least strongly suggests that the Flowchart process
block is a graphic representation of the Truth Table. (Ans. 13-14).
Moreover, as noted by the Examiner, in reference to the Truth Table (Fig. 5),
Appeal 2009-010069
Application 10/268,541

5
Dellen teaches that for various input combinations, the user can define
action(s) to be performed when the combination is satisfied (i.e., functions).
(Ans. 13; see also Dellen para. [38]). Accordingly, we find Dellen at least
strongly suggests a truth table graphical function, as claimed in independent
claims 1, 19, 26, and 27, for essentially the reasons articulated by the
Examiner, as discussed above.

ISSUE (2)
Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
combination of Dellen and Watkins would have taught or
suggested selecting a truth table graphical function in the
statechart, within the meaning of independent claims 1, 19, 26,
and 27?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Dellen and Watkins fail to teach or suggest a
truth table graphical function in the “statechart,” as claimed. (App. Br. 12).
In particular, Appellants contend that the “state table” disclosed in Watkins
is not a “statechart,” as claimed. (App. Br. 13)
The Examiner found that the claimed “statechart” is taught or
suggested by the “state table” disclosed in Watkins. (Ans. 15-16). We agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Appellants’ proffered definition of a
“statechart” (App. Br. 12) is unavailing and untimely.1 (Ans. 15; see also
App. Br. Evidence Appendix IX: “None”). Moreover, Appellants have not

1 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ix)(“ Reference to unentered evidence is not
permitted in the brief.”).
Appeal 2009-010069
Application 10/268,541

6
rebutted (by filing a Reply Brief) the Examiner’s reliance on the Haynes
reference (as extrinsic evidence) which the Examiner finds evidences that
“statecharts” were also known in the art as state diagrams. (Ans. 15).
In light of the above, we find the Examiner’s broader construction of
the term “statechart” is reasonable when viewed in light of Appellants’
Specification, and because the claims do not further define “statechart.”
Based on the record regarding Issues 1 and 2, we find Appellants’
arguments unpersuasive regarding the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 26, and 27. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 1, and claims 2-6, 12-14, 17-18, 26 and 27,
which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE (3)
Under §103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references would have taught or suggested graphically
debugging the truth table graphing function, within the
meaning of independent claim 19? 2

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the cited references are silent as to any
graphical debugging. (App. Br. 13). Appellants further contend that the cited
portions of Watkins concern “simulation runs.” (App. Br. 14) We disagree
with Appellants for the reasons discussed infra.

2 Appellants fail to raise this argument with respect to claim 27. Arguments
not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also Hyatt v.
Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir 2008).
Appeal 2009-010069
Application 10/268,541

7
The Examiner interpreted “debugging” to include “detecting status
information.” (Ans. 7). The Examiner’s claim construction was not rebutted
by Appellants. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Dellen teaches or
suggests graphical error correction (Ans. 7, Dellen, pgs. 303-304, para. 49-
54). In addition, the Examiner relied on Watkins which teaches detecting
status information that is returned by the programs (such as: specified
simulation conditions met/not met etc.) (emphasis added). (Col. 9, ll.1-5).
Moreover, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 7), Dellen teaches a
controlled simulation (“stepped run”) in which the user specifies the
conditions for the simulation. (Col. 7, ll. 13-28). Therefore, we are in
agreement with the Examiner that the cited references at least strongly
suggest “debugging” (i.e., graphical error correction and detecting status
information through a controlled process) as would have been recognized by
one skilled in the art (i.e., detecting errors).
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding that the cited references would have taught or
suggested graphically debugging the truth table, within the meaning of
independent claim 19. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 19, and associated dependent claims 20 and
21 which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Claims 22-25
Dependent claims 22-25, stand rejected as unpatentable over the
combination of Dellen, Watkins and Chao. Appellants urge the patentability
of claims 22-25 based on the arguments previously presented for claim 19,
Appeal 2009-010069
Application 10/268,541

8
discussed above (App. Br. 15), which we found to be unavailing. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 22-25 for the same
reasons discussed above for claim 19.

Claims 7-11
Dependent claims 7-11 stand rejected under §103 as being
unpatentable over Dellen, Watkins, and Marmetstein. Appellants’
arguments urge patentability based on the arguments previously presented
for independent claim 1 (App. Br. 14), which we found to be unavailing.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-11 for the same
reasons discussed above for claim 1.

Claims 15 and 16
Dependent claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under §103 as being
unpatentable over Dellen, Watkins, and Sims. Appellants’ arguments urge
patentability based on the arguments previously presented for independent
claim 1, i.e., because Sims does not cure the deficiencies of Dellen and
Watkins. (App. Br. 14-15). However, we find no deficiencies regarding the
combination of Dellen and Watkins, as discussed above with respect to
claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 16
for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1.

Appeal 2009-010069
Application 10/268,541

9
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-27 under §103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc