Ex Parte Cornell et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 19, 2012

11009680 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 19, 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.
11/009,680 12/10/2004 Kevin J. Cornell LOT920040112US1 (009) 2792
46321 7590 07/20/2012
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
COYER, RYAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2012 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 KEVIN J. CORNELL, ERIC O. FUNK, DUONG B. NGUYEN,
and DAVID RUEST
________________

Appeal 2010-000692
Application 11/009,680
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000692
Application 11/009,680

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 – 6. Claims 7 – 16 are canceled. App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to a method for processing a model-to-model
transformation that can include dynamically accepting a transformation to
apply to a source model in order to produce a target model. See Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
1. A method for processing model-to-model transformations
comprising the steps of:
selecting a source model in a transformation engine;
dynamically accepting a transformation in the
transformation engine to be applied to the source model; and,
applying the transformation to the source model in order
to produce a target model.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Freitas (US 2006/0064667 A1, Mar. 23, 2006). Ans. 3 – 5.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Freitas discloses “applying the
transformation to the source model in order to produce a target model,” as
recited in claim 1?

Appeal 2010-000692
Application 11/009,680

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Freitas anticipates claim 1 by describing “a
process wherein a first model is taken as input (Intermediate Model 40), said
model is altered by an apparatus (Model Builder Engine 50) using various
rules (e.g. Model Builder Classes 52) to produce as output a second model
(Transformation Model 60).” Ans. 7 – 8 (citing Freitas Fig. 2). Appellants
argue that the Examiner erred because Freitas discloses that “[t]he
transformation model 60 is a non-graphical representation of how
transformations are to be realized.” App. Br. 6 (citing Freitas ¶ [0032]); see
also Reply Br. 2 – 3. However, the Examiner relies on the model builder
engine and model builder classes of Freitas, not the transformation model, to
describe the claimed transformation engine and transformation. See Ans. 7 –
8. Thus, Appellants’ argument is not responsive to, and not persuasive of
error in, the Examiner’s rejection.
Furthermore, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the
transformation model of Freitas to describe a target model. The Specification
does not provide a clear definition of a “target model.” We find a target
model is the model that results from applying a transformation or executing
a rule or source object—an interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See, e.g., Spec. Fig. 3 and ¶¶ [0005] – [0007], [0009], [0010], [0017] –
[0020], [0025] – [0027], and [0029]. Based on this broad description, we
find that the Examiner properly finds that the transformation model of
Freitas equates to the claimed “target model.” Indeed, Appellants have not
provided sufficient persuasive evidence or argument to show error in the
Examiner’s interpretation.
Appeal 2010-000692
Application 11/009,680

4
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that building a transformation
model (i.e., a target model), by using rules established by the model builder
classes (i.e., transformations), discloses “applying the transformation to the
source model in order to produce a target model,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2 – 6, which are not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke