Ex Parte Anerousis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2014

12172540 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2014)

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.
12/172,540 07/14/2008 Nikolaos Anerousis YOR920070689US1 5154
48062 7590 11/24/2014
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
1175 Post Road East
2nd Floor
Westport, CT 06880
EXAMINER
CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte NIKOLAOS ANEROUSIS,
MILTON H. HERNANDEZ, HANI T. JAMJOON,
DEBANJAN SAHA, RAMENDRA K. SAHOO,
ZON-YIN SHAE, and ANEES A. SHAIKH
____________________

Appeal 2012-007286
Application 12/172,540
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-007286
Application 12/172,540

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “computer-aided process modeling
and the like.” (Spec. 1:6–7.). Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for dynamic structuring of process annotations,
said method comprising the steps of:
generating a plurality of base templates, each of said base
templates modeling a corresponding process;
instantiating a plurality of instances of each of said base
templates, each of said plurality of instances corresponding to
an application of said corresponding process to a particular
environment; and
annotating each of said instances of each of said base
templates, based, in each case, upon observation of functioning
of said instance in said particular environment, wherein one or
more steps of said method are performed by one or more
hardware devices.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–6, 8–12, 14, 16–18, 20–22, 24, and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Van Der Meer (US 6,289,362
B1; Sept. 11, 2001).
Claims 2, 7, 15, 19, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Van Der Meer and Chan (US 2005/0021348 Al; Jan. 27,
2005).
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Van Der Meer and Naaman (US 2008/0195657 Al; Aug. 14, 2008).
Appeal 2012-007286
Application 12/172,540

3
ISSUE
The following issue is dispositive of this appeal: Does Van Der Meer
disclose “base templates modeling a corresponding process” as recited in
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found Van Der Meer disclosed “template identifiers
that correspond[] to [the claimed] base templates.” (Ans. 5.) The Examiner
also found, among other things, template identifiers are “part of defining
template model[s] because each template corresponds to [a] specific process
in accordance with the template ID in the page definition.” (Id. at 15.)
Appellants contend Van Der Meer does not disclose templates that
“model[] a corresponding process.” (See, e.g., App. Br. 6.) Appellants
assert the sections of Van Der Meer cited by the Examiner simply teach,
among other things, generating template identifiers and templates, but none
of the citations disclose base templates that “model[] a corresponding
process.” (See App. Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 2–5.)
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner found Van Der Meer’s
template identifiers anticipated the recited “base templates modeling a
corresponding process,” (see Ans. 5, 16), but the cited portions of Van Der
Meer disclose the template identifiers merely specify templates, (see, e.g.,
Van Der Meer col. 4, ll. 43–45.) The citations do not disclose Van Der
Meer’s template identifiers are “base templates [that] model[] a
corresponding process.” Even if we understood the Examiner to have found
Van Der Meer’s templates anticipated the claimed “base templates,” the
cited portions of Van Der Meer do not disclose the templates “model[] a
corresponding process,” nor do the citations support the Examiner’s related
Appeal 2012-007286
Application 12/172,540

4
finding that “each template corresponds to [a] specific process in accordance
with the template ID in the page definition.” (See Ans. 15 (citing Van Der
Meer col. 4, ll. 51–60; Fig. 13).) Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Claims 2–25 either depend
from claim 1 or recite similar limitations. Because the Examiner relied on
the findings discussed above to reject claims 2–25, we also do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejections of claims 1–25.

REVERSED

ELD