Ex Parte Dreiling et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2016

11344939 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111344,939 0113112006 Alexander Dreiling
50400 7590 07114/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2058.200US 1 7190
EXAMINER
PEACHER, LORENA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER DREILING,
MICHAEL ROSEMANN,
KARSTEN A. SCHULZ,
and W ASIM SADIQ
Appeal2014--000822
Application 11/344,939
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Alexander Dreiling, Michael Rosemann, Karsten A. Schulz, and W asim
Sadiq (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of
claims 1-24, 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 ("Br.,"
filed June 13, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 29,
2013), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed January 7, 2013).
Appeal2014-000822
Application 11/344,939
The Appellants invented a process configuration tool. Specification
para. 5.
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 system, comprising:
[ 1] a set of configurable process models embodied in a
repository,
each configurable process model comprising a series of
process modules
that form a complete generic process
that can be customized
by disabling or removing one or more of the
process modules;
[2] a model reduction and configuration module to produce,
usmg one or more processors,
a custom process model
by disabling or removing
one or more unused process modules
from the complete generic process of a selected
process model
of the set of configurable process models
retrieved from the repository;
[3] a set of process model data repositories to provide data to
the model reduction and configuration module;
and
2
Appeal2014-000822
Application 11/344,939
[ 4] an enterprise system to operate with the custom process
model,
the model reduction and configuration module
to disable or remove one or more additional
process modules iteratively
based at least on iterative user feedback
until the custom process model models a
customized process.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Reilly
Chan
us 5,842,193
US 2005/0021348 Al
Goldszmidt US 2006/0064335 Al
Adi US 2006/0229923 Al
Nov. 24, 1998
Jan.27,2005
Mar. 23, 2006
Oct. 12, 2006
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 18, 19, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Goldszmidt and Reilly.
Claims 10, 14--17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Goldszmidt, Reilly, and Chan.
Claims 22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Goldszmidt, Reilly, and Adi.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the references show
it was predictable to create new processes by starting with already formed
processes and modifying them, particularly by removing some parts from
them.
3
Appeal2014-000822
Application 11/344,939
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
Goldszmidt
01. Goldszmidt is directed to performing business process
modeling using reusable business process modules and
information technology components. Goldszmidt para. 1.
02. Goldszmidt describes performing business process modeling by
identifying capabilities, activities, and requirements associated
with a business problem or an opportunity. The activities are
operable for implementing the capabilities and the capabilities are
operable for resolving the business problem or exploiting the
opportunity. For each of the activities, select at least one
corresponding process module that includes listings of attributes
applicable to the activities, selecting at least one of the attributes
from the listings, and defining transition artifacts for integrating
selected process modules. Then compile the transition artifacts,
selected attributes, and selected activities with corresponding
process modules, and generate a business process model as a
result of the compilation. Goldszmidt para. 4.
03. Goldszmidt describes business process models as the output or
final product realized as a result of implementing the process
model configurator application. These process models are used to
4
Appeal2014-000822
Application 11/344,939
generate and implement a detailed workflow for execution.
Goldszmidt para. 22.
04. Goldszmidt describes attribute categories used by the process
model configurator application in creating and/or modifying
business process models. These attribute categories enable the
same process module design to be easily and rapidly adapted, as
needed, for reuse in new or other existing solutions. The attribute
categories provide pre-defined attributes available for association
with one or more applicable process modules selected by an
individual when creating a business process model. The
application and data components together provide pre-defined
information technology attributes. A user selects attributes from
these attribute categories in order to satisfy an activity requirement
selected for use in creating a business process model. Goldszmidt
para. 23.
Reilly
05. Reilly is directed to expert systems and knowledge bases.
Reilly 1: 19--22.
06. Reilly describes how, during planning and analysis, information
engineering (IE) concepts facilitate both data modeling and
activity modeling at the conceptual level. Grasping these
concepts, however, just after being introduced to IE is particularly
difficult. Reilly uses terms familiar to the business and does not
use IE-specific terms in an interactive dialog, facilitating
participation of less technically oriented users in data and activity
5
Appeal2014-000822
Application 11/344,939
modeling during the planning and analysis stages of the software
development life cycle. Reilly 2:48-56.
07. Reilly's Customizing Tool searches for and retrieves from the
Object Repository like objects. The Activity Hierarchy Diagram
(AHD) for Receive Reimburse is then modified. In viewing the
Receive Reimbursement activity object, the user may then respond
that Reimbursement and Check Invoice be decomposed. The
Customizing Tool then searches for and retrieves from the Object
Repository objects similar to Reimbursement and Check Invoice.
In addition to the aliases Reimbursement, Statement, and Invoice
given previously, the Customizing Tool searches for and finds
other similar objects including Payment and Bill. The objects
found can also be decomposed into additional objects. When
these objects are displayed, the user can choose to keep, change,
delete, or add to them. When an elementary process is reached,
the Customizing Tool indicates there are no more objects to be
decomposed for that process. The Customizing Tool iterates back
to the Consultation Tool for decomposition of the objects. The
Consultation Tool breaks down the objects level by level and does
not proceed to the next level until the current level is complete.
Reilly 12:35-67.
6
Appeal2014-000822
Application 11/344,939
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings and analysis from Answer 3-33 and
reach similar legal conclusions. In particular, as to Appellants' arguments
regarding the first limitation of claim 1, we find that both Goldszmidt and
Reilly describe complete reusable process descriptions that may be
characterized as either modules or models. Such complete reusable
processes are within the scope of a set of configurable process models
embodied in a repository. As such processes are described as complete,
they are within the scope of a complete generic process. As both references
describe the processes as being modifiable, Goldszmidt by modifying
attributes and Reilly by adding or deleting objects at the next level below of
decomposition, they are within the scope of being customized by disabling
or removing one or more of the constituent parts. Although Goldszmidt
describes its constituent parts as attributes, Reilly describes its constituents
as processes at the next level of decomposition. Thus, at least Reilly's
process constituent processes are within the scope of process modules.
In particular, as to Appellants' arguments regarding the final limitation
of claim 1, we note that the transition "comprising" allows for operations in
addition to disablement or removal of process modules. Reilly describes an
iterative process of modifying each level of process decomposition by
adding or removing modules from that level to modify the level above that
one until done based on the user's perception of the design goal. This is
within the scope of disabling or removing one or more additional process
modules iteratively based at least on iterative user feedback until the
custom process model models a customized process. Put another way, it is
7
Appeal2014-000822
Application 11/344,939
at least forseeable and predictable to one of ordinary skill for some banked
process for customization to be sufficiently close to a desired process that it
would require only one or two sub-process removals to achieve the desired
goal.
Claim 7, although nominally argued separately, is argued on the basis of
claim 1 and the arguments are equally unpersuasive here.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-13, 18, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Goldszmidt and Reilly is proper.
The rejection of claims 10, 14--17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Goldszmidt, Reilly, and Chan is proper.
The rejection of claims 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Goldszmidt, Reilly, and Adi is proper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-24 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
8