Ex Parte Cohen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 2, 2017

11942188 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2017)

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.
11/942,188 11/19/2007 Richard J. Cohen AUS920070682US1 1143
87220 7590 02/02/2017
Walder Intellectual Property Law (END)
C/O Walder Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
17304 Preston Road
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75252
EXAMINER
OFORI-AWUAH, MAAME
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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 RICHARD J. COHEN and RANDOLPH M. FORLENZA
Appeal 2014—007058
Application 11/942,188
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Richard J. Cohen and Randolph M. Forlenza (Appellants) seek review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—24,
the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed December 18, 2013) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 9,
2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 9, 2014), and Final
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 18, 2013).
Appeal 2014-007058
Application 11/942,188
The Appellants invented a way of using hierarchical groupings to
organize governance, risk, and compliance guidelines, policies, categories,
and rules. Specification para. 2.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method in a data processing system for managing
governance, risk, or compliance policies,
the method comprising:
[1] providing, by the data processing system, a graphical user
interface to a user to provide management of a hierarchical
grouping structure of
guide nodes,
category nodes,
policy nodes, and
rules,
wherein each rule is organized under one or more policy nodes,
wherein each guide node represents a high level organization
for a set of compliance policies,
wherein each category node represents a grouping of policies
within the set of compliance policies,
wherein each policy node attaches one or more rules;
[2] receiving, by the data processing system, input from a user
via the graphical user interface to manage the hierarchical
grouping structure of guide nodes, category nodes, policy
nodes, and rules;
[3] modifying, by the data processing system, the hierarchical
grouping structure based on the input from the user to form a
modified hierarchical grouping structure of guide nodes,
category nodes, policy nodes, and rules;
2
Appeal 2014-007058
Application 11/942,188
[4] storing the modified hierarchical grouping structure of guide
nodes, category nodes, policy nodes, and rules to a database in
a computer storage;
and
[5] responsive to selection of a rule, displaying, by the data
processing system via the graphical user interface, a view of
which guide nodes the selected rule is organized under in the
hierarchical grouping structure of guide nodes, category nodes,
policy nodes, and rules.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Albazz and Li.
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether a hierarchical
relationship may be implemented using plural data structures.
Albazz
Li
US 2002/0103661 A1 Aug. 1, 2002
US 7,836,427 B1 Nov. 16, 2010
ISSUES
3
Appeal 2014-007058
Application 11/942,188
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Albazz
01. Albazz is directed to a system and method for representing
business policies and procedures and governing the conduct of
business activities using a business rules book. Albazz para. 2.
02. Albazz describes representing business policy and the
governing of business activities using a centrally stored Business
Rules Book (BRB). A Business Rules Book maintained by an
organization contains a set of policy and procedural rules
governing most aspects of the organization's internal and external
activities. The organization maintains stored Policy Sets, each
representing a unique set of rules and policy instances selected
from the Business Rules Book. Albazz para. 9.
03. Albazz describes the Business Rules Book (BRB) as an entity
which resides on the organization computer system. The BRB is a
compilation of business rules which is preferably a centrally-
stored codification of all business policies and procedures,
industry practices, and the scope, constraints, and characteristics
of the organization's business offerings and/or requirements.
Albazz para. 32.
4
Appeal 2014-007058
Application 11/942,188
04. Albazz describes the Business Rules Book as containing any
desired number of “Pages”, which are preferably logically
organized into business disciplines that are sensible within the
context of the organization's business and industry. For example,
separate Pages could be provided for internal processes like
supplies and services procurement; contract-specific elements
such as pricing and discounts, order fulfillment, billing practices,
invoice layout, payment schedules etc.; along with Pages defining
industry-specific elements such as group insurance policies,
regulatory practices etc. A Page can be further divided into a
plurality of “Folds”, by which each Fold inherits the main
characteristics of the Page but can also hold its own specific set of
parameters. Pages can also be grouped together in an aggregate
Page. Albazz para. 33.
05. Albazz describes each BRB Page and Fold as holding a
predefined set of parameters, which represent the full spectrum or
range of activities undertaken by the organization in the category
to which the Page or Fold is directed. Each parameter is linked to
a corresponding linking program which executes the required
business logic to implement the rules contained within the
respective Page or Fold. Tanking programs can be written in any
language, however rules engines are preferred for their flexibility
and ease of use. Albazz para. 34.
06. Albazz describes the BRB as being used in conjunction with
Policy Instances. Each Policy Instance represents a set of specific
Instances of Pages in the Business Rules Book. Like the BRB, the
5
Appeal 2014-007058
Application 11/942,188
Policy Instances can also be considered to consist of Pages. Each
Page of the Policy Instances corresponds to a Page in the Business
Rules Book, and provides the appropriate execution parameters
for the BRB Page logic. For example, if the BRB page contains
logic to determine allowable discounted prices, the corresponding
Policy Instance would set the discount percentage, for example
based upon permissible discounts that can be offered by the
personnel making the offer. Albazz para. 37.
07. Albazz describes the Policy Instances as combining to generate
a specific Policy Set within the parameters established by the
BRB, which is customized to each level, department and even (if
desired) employee within the organization. Albazz Fig. 2
illustrates the hierarchical relationship between the Policy Set and
the BRB. Albazz para. 38.
08. Albazz describes the organization’s administration staff, using
the BRB as a guide, creating test Policy Instances and Sets for
approval by management, and ultimately publishing a collection
of approved Policy Sets each specifying respective sets of Policy
Instances representing specific Pages of the organization's BRB.
The organization also compiles a product catalog, or a group of
catalogs or other product information sources, featuring the
complete list of products to be made available to internal and
external users, preferably identifying one or more product
categories for each product. If it is determined that the existing
BRB is not flexible enough to generate practical or effective
Policy Sets, management can initiate the process of adding new
6
Appeal 2014-007058
Application 11/942,188
pages to the BRB or extending or amending existing BRB Pages.
Albazz paras. 65—66.
Li
09. Li is directed to tree-based rule composition. Li 1:7—10.
10. Li describes a graphical user interface for displaying and
editing rules. Li Fig. 2; 4:50—54.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and analysis from Final Action 3—10
and Answer 9-23 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now address the
arguments raised in the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that
Albazz does not teach that a Policy Instance is a node of the
Business Rules Book attaching one or more rules such that a
rule is organized under a policy node, which is organized under
a guide node, and a user can select, via a graphical user
interface, a rule node to display the guide node under which the
selected rule node is organized in the hierarchal grouping.
Reply Br. 3. Appellants are arguing that Albazz uses two structures rather
than a single structure. App. Br. 9.
Albazz describes a Business Rules Book (BRB) that is hierarchically
organized into business disciplines, such as internal processes, contract
elements, and industry specific elements. Each of these in turn are
subdivided into specific categories such as supplies and services
procurement, pricing and discounts, order fulfillment, billing practices,
invoice layout, payment schedules. Each of these in turn are subdivided into
7
Appeal 2014-007058
Application 11/942,188
aggregate pages, in turn divided into individual pages. This accounts for the
hierarchy of guide and category. Albazz goes on to describe how each
Policy Instance represents a set of specific Instances of Pages in the
Business Rules Book. This linkage between specific pages and policy
instances is then a continuation of the hierarchy down to the next level
corresponding to the recited policy. As each policy instance in turn contains
the appropriate execution parameters for the page logic, such parameters rule
such specific policy execution, and in that sense are rules, as for example in
determining allowable discounted prices.
The key here is that the claims recite a hierarchy, but do not narrow or
specify any particular data structure for implementing that hierarchy. The
recited nodes are not physical, but logical groupings, which Albazz
describes. In any event, it was at least predictable to instantiate the labels
for such groupings if only to allow the viewer to follow the organization of
the BRB, and such instances would then be some form of node
implementation.
We come now to the crux of Appellants’ argument, viz. that Albazz
implements its hierarchy with two structures. Again, the claims do not recite
or narrow the manner of implementation. As Albazz explicitly describes, its
Figure 2 is a visual representation of the single hierarchy Albazz creates.
That it is implemented with two data structures is not pertinent where the
claim does not recite any particular implementation.
As to claim 2, reciting a category node being organized under a guide
node, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Albazz fails to
describe this. Reply Br. 5—6. We find this organization supra.
8
Appeal 2014-007058
Application 11/942,188
As to claim 4, reciting a category node not being organized under a
guide node, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Albazz fails
to describe this. Reply Br. 6. This is a logical and common sense
implication of the instance where a business discipline has only a single
subdivision. There would be no need for labelling the business discipline in
that instance.
As to claim 6, reciting a policy node not being organized under a guide
or category node, we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Albazz
fails to describe this. Reply Br. 7. Albazz explicitly ties its policies to the
pages that represent guide and category instances.
As to claim 21, reciting the hierarchical grouping of guide nodes
structure comprises a first guide node associated with a first regulation
guideline and a second guide node associated with a second regulation
guideline, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claim is
more specific than Examiner finds. Reply Br. 7. Appellants do not discuss
specifically how that applies here. As Albazz’s policies and rules are
associated with its pages which are organized by business discipline, the
recited association is explicit. The claim does not specify or narrow the
implementation of such association. The arguments to claims 22 and 23 are
similarly unpersuasive as not specifying why the Examiner rejection is
improper.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Albazz and Li is proper.
9
Appeal 2014-007058
Application 11/942,188
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—24 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) (2011).
AFFIRMED
10