11393410 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2013)

Ex Parte Britton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 1, 2013

11393410 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2013)

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. 11/393,410 03/30/2006 Kathryn H. Britton RSW920050238US1 (229) 6918 46320 7590 11/04/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER UNG, LANNY N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/04/2013 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 KATHRYN H. BRITTON, JOHN G. DUDLEY, YONGCHENG LI, and YIH-SHIN TAN ____________ Appeal 2011-005759 Application 11/393,410 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KEN B. BARRETT, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005759 Application 11/393,410 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-17 (Br. 1) which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Illustrative Claim Appellants’ invention relates to a method, system and computer program product for the pattern based administration of operations in a component based computing solution. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1. A composite application data processing system enabled for pattern based administration of an operation, the system comprising: a dependency matrix model specifying different dependent components for an operation, corresponding actions to be performed in each of the components and a sequence of performing the actions in order to effectuate the operation across the dependent components; a plurality of artifacts, each artifact associated with a particular action for a particular computing platform; and, a pattern generated operation task control executing in memory by a processor of a computer and enabled to process an instance of the dependency matrix model through an invocation of selected ones of the artifacts. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hütsch US 2001/0034771 A1 Oct. 25, 2001 Wang US 2003/0066050 A1 Apr. 3, 2003 Appeal 2011-005759 Application 11/393,410 3 Sorge US 6,613,098 B1 Sept. 2, 2003 Louis J.M. Taborda, The Release Matrix for Component-Based Software, COMPONENT-BASED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING: 7TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM, May 24-25 (2004) pp. 100-113. Bixin Li, Managing Dependencies in Component-Based Systems Based on Matrix Model, PROC. OF NET.OBJECT.DAYS 2003 (2003) pp. 22-25. Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Taborda. Ans. 4-8.1 The Examiner rejected claims 3, 8, and 11 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Taborda and Wang. Ans. 8-10. The Examiner rejected claim 4 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Taborda and Hütsch. Ans. 11. The Examiner rejected claim 5 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Taborda and Li. Ans. 11-12. The Examiner rejected claims 12-17 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taborda in view of Sorge. Ans. 12-15. ISSUE The dispositive issue raised by Appellants is as follows:2 1 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Appellants’ Brief dated August 23, 2010 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 9, 2010. 2 Appellants’ contentions raise additional issues. As the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues. Appeal 2011-005759 Application 11/393,410 4 Did the Examiner err in finding that the “release matrix” of Taborda discloses the claimed “dependency matrix model”? ANALYSIS Appellants contend, inter alia, that the Examiner erred because Taborda does not disclose the claimed “dependency matrix model” (Br. 10-11). In particular, Appellants contend that the Examiner has incorrectly construed “dependency matrix model” to mean “release matrix” and that the Release Matrix (Fig. 3) of Taborda “is not a matrix of dependent components of an operation, but a ‘means of planning and tracking the evolution of a system architecture over time. . . .’” (Br. 10-11, citing Taborda § 4.1 (second paragraph)). We begin by construing the limitation “dependency matrix model specifying different dependent components for an operation” as recited in claim 1. Independent claims 6, 9, 12, and 15 contain similar limitations. Claim construction is an issue of law that we review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Claims must be given their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “[We] may [] rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Appeal 2011-005759 Application 11/393,410 5 Upon reviewing Appellants’ Specification, we fail to find an explicit definition for the claim terms “dependency matrix model” or “dependent components.” Referring to a computer dictionary, we note that the definition of “dependence” in the context of the computer arts is “[t]he state in which one entity relies upon specific hardware, software, or specific events for its own definition or functionality.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Ed., p. 152, (2002). Thus, we construe “dependency matrix model specifying different dependent components for an operation” to require that at least one of the components that make up an operation relies on at least another of the components, either for its definition or functionality. This construction is consistent with the discussion of dependent components in Appellants’ Specification (See Spec. ¶¶ [0018], [0024]-[0027]). We agree with Appellants that the Release Matrix of Taborda “is not a matrix of dependent components of an operation. . . ” (See Br. 10-11, emphasis added). Instead, the Release Matrix in Taborda is used as a generalization of a software release plan as a project management tool (Taborda, Abstract). Specifically, the “Release Matrix represents a master release plan that consolidates and synchronizes the individual release plans of both the products and the components” (Taborda, § 4.1 (fourth paragraph, lines 9-10)). The Examiner contends that the Release Matrix is a “matrix representation [that] identifies the product (operation) and components so that their perspectives and interdependencies can be clarified. . .” and thus discloses the claimed “dependent components for an operation” (Ans. 4, Appeal 2011-005759 Application 11/393,410 6 citing Taborda, § 4.1 (first paragraph, lines 4-6)). The Examiner has mischaracterized the cited section of Taborda. The actual, complete language upon which the Examiner relies states that a “matrix representation has been proposed to … explicitly identify[] the product and component stakeholders so that their perspectives and interdependencies can be clarified” (Taborda, § 4.1 (first paragraph, lines 4-6), emphasis added). Thus, the Release Matrix represents the interdependencies of the stakeholders (e.g., product managers and component development teams) for all of the products and not interdependencies among the specific components of one particular product (See Taborda, § 2.4). Taborda does not appear to disclose, and the Examiner points to no other section of the reference for such disclosure, that the components are dependent on each other for their definition and/or functionality, but merely discloses that a particular product requires each relevant component in order to be successfully released. Thus, Taborda does not disclose a dependency matrix model that specifies dependent components for an operation, as claimed. Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Taborda. The Examiner has not identified teachings in Wang, Hütsch, Li, or Sorge to cure the deficiency in Taborda noted supra regarding the rejection of claim 1 (See Ans. 8-15). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 6 and 9, which recite similar limitations to that which we find not disclosed by the cited art; and (3) claims 2, 7, and 10, which depend from claim 1, 6, or 9. We further do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of (4) independent claims 12 and 15, which recite similar Appeal 2011-005759 Application 11/393,410 7 limitations to that which we find not disclosed by the cited art; and (5) claims 3-5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17, which depend from claim 1, 6, 9, 12 or 15. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17 is reversed.3 REVERSED tj 3 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further prosecution of these claims, particularly claims 9-11 and 15-17, which recite a computer program product comprising a computer usable medium, or claims in similar form, the Examiner’s attention is directed to In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential), MPEP § 2106(I) (8th ed. 2001, rev. 2012), and the Director’s Memo Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).