Ex Parte GUO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 6, 2016

13350910 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/350,910 01/16/2012 LIANG GUO
52021 7590 10/11/2016
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
CN920100128US1_8150-0137 9423
EXAMINER
KRAFT, SHIH-WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/11/2016 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIANG GUO and XU QIN ZHAO
Appeal2015-003429
Application 13/350,910
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, WSTIN BUSCH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing ("Request") under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52 for our Decision mailed July 26, 2016, in which we affirmed the
Examiner's rejection of claim 2 as obvious.
Appellants assert the Decision was in error because the Board "either
misapprehended and/or overlooked certain arguments presented" in the
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. Request 1. We have reconsidered our
original Decision in light of Appellants' Request but are not persuaded of
any errors. We therefore decline to change the Decision.
Appellants' Request is DENIED.
1
Appeal2015-003429
Application 13/350,910
Disputed Claim
Appellants seek rehearing only on claim 2. Request 2. Claim 2
depends from claim 1, and both are reproduced below.
1. A method for collaborative work of applications, comprising:
reading a rule for defining a data transmission among
collaborative working applications;
initiating applications related to the rule using a processor;
acquiring progress identifiers of the applications; and
registering the progress identifiers of the applications.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the rule of the data
transmission includes an event for triggering the data
transmission.
ANALYSIS
The Decision affirmed the Examiner's finding that Young (US
2005/0160361 Al; July 21, 2005) teaches or suggests "the rule of the data
transmission includes an event for triggering the data transmission," as
recited in claim 2. Decision 8-9; Final Act. 2.
Issue #1: Whether use of Young f 55 is a new ground of rejection
One sentence of the Decision quotes paragraph 55 of Young as
disclosing "the mapping rule object [i.e., MRO] created at 830 can accept
data from an information provider." Decision 8. The Request concedes "the
Examiner's rejection ... refers to paragraph [0055]" but contends "the
Examiner's analysis does not rely upon the particular teachings in paragraph
[0055] cited by the Board" and therefore "it represents an undesignated new
grounds of rejection." Request 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. "It is well-
established that the Board is free to affirm an examiner's rejection so long as
2
Appeal2015-003429
Application 13/350,910
appellants have had a fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection."
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Here,
the Examiner's Final Rejection cites the same paragraph 55 of Young,
amongst others, in finding "Young teaches the mapping rule object (MRO)
includes source logic that identifies a source from which the first data will be
received." Final Act. 17. Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Decision's quotation of Young (i.e., an MRO accepts data from a source
such as an information provider) in any way changes the thrust of the
Examiner's finding in the Final Rejection (i.e., an MRO receives data from a
source), particularly given that both cite the same paragraph of Young.
Accordingly, we find Appellants' contention of an undesignated new
ground of rejection is without merit.
Issue #2: Whether the MRO "includes" an event
Claim 2 recites "the rule ... includes an event." The Decision
affirmed the Examiner's finding that "Young teaches the events are part of
the MRO" (i.e., Young's mapping rule object). Decision 8; Ans. 20. As
discussed above, the Decision relied in part on Young stating "the mapping
rule object created at 830 can accept data from an information provider."
Young i-f 55; Decision 8.
Appellants contend "the MRO is already created at the time it accepts
the data" and therefore "the MRO does not include the data - instead, the
MRO operates on the data." Request 4 (footnotes omitted); see also id. at 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. First, Appellants'
argument merely expresses a disagreement with our result rather than any
"points ... misapprehended or overlooked by the Board," as required by 37
3
Appeal2015-003429
Application 13/350,910
C.F.R. § 41.52. Second, Appellant's argument is not commensurate with the
claim's scope as currently written. Appellants have not directed us to
anything in claim 2 specifying how, when, or how long an event must be
"included" in the rule. For example, claim 2 does not require the event be
included when the rule is first created, nor that the same event be
permanently included. An MRO that "accepts" data that includes an event
teaches or suggests the MRO "includes" the data (e.g., by including a link to
the data). The fact that the MRO subsequently transforms the data further
underscores that the MRO at least temporarily "includes" such data in order
to know what to transform. The prior art need not use the same words as the
patentee. Teva Pharm. Indus. Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, 661 F .3d
1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Issue #3: Whether the triggers relate to "the data transmission"
Appellants contend "[t]he 'data transmission,' as characterized by the
Examiner refers to the translation of data from a first format to a second
format by the MRO" yet "none of the actions described in paragraph [0032]
correspond to this alleged data transmission." Request 6-7.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As above, Appellants
may disagree with our result but they have not identified any "points ...
misapprehended or overlooked by the Board," as required by 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52. The only misapprehension here appears to be Appellants'
mischaracterization of the Examiner's findings for "data transmission." The
Examiner finds "one of ordinary skill in the art understands that sharing
information demonstrates the transmission of information from a source to a
destination." Ans. 20 (emphasis added). The Examiner further finds "the
4
Appeal2015-003429
Application 13/350,910
MRO of Young defines the data transmission" (e.g., by identifying "the
source from which data will be received"; "the destination to which second
data will be provided"; and the "formats" for the data) and the MRO
"provid[es] the second data to another computer component." Id.; see also
Final Act. 17 (citing, e.g., Young i-f 7). Thus, for "data transmission," the
Examiner relies on the MRO providing data to another component, not just
"the translation of data" as Appellants suggest. See also Decision 5.
Regardless, the actions in Young do correspond to data transmission.
Decision 8-9. Paragraph 32 of Young discloses that "actions can be
triggered by business events." The next paragraph of Young describes
examples of such events, disclosing that "[t]ypes of business events for
which a business process policy object can implement logic, and thus for
which data conversions may be required include, but are not limited to,
reference events, change events, threshold events, task completion events,
and task failure events." Young i-f 33. The next paragraph explains that
MROs are what perform this data conversion: "this application describes
using mapping rule objects (MR Os) to facilitate converting business process
policy data between various formats." Id. i-f 34. After the data conversion,
such events "can provide information" to other components. Id. i-f 33; see
also id. i-f 31 ("One example business event can be a message between an
information source and an intended target."). Young explains it is the MRO
that does this providing: "an MRO ... can ... then provide the second data
to another component." Id. i-f 10; Ans. 18. Thus, contrary to Appellants'
assertion, the actions described in Young do correspond to the data
transmission relied upon by the Examiner. That is true regardless of whether
5
Appeal2015-003429
Application 13/350,910
the data transmission is the "translation of data" (as Appellants suggest) or
"providing the second data to another computer component" (as the
Examiner finds).
Issue #4: Whether the events relate to a BPPO rather than a MRO
Claim 2 of the present application recites "the rule ... includes an
event," and as discussed above, the Examiner relies upon the MRO for the
claimed rule. Young states that "[a] business process policy object can
facilitate automatically performing actions .... These and similar actions
can be triggered by business events." Young i-f 32 (emphasis added).
Appellants contend that "the 'business process policy object' (BPPO) is not
an MRO." Request 7. However, as discussed above, the very next
paragraphs of Young explain that such business events may require data
transmissions performed by MROs. Young i-fi-1 33-34. Thus, we are not
persuaded of any error in the Decision.
DECISION
Based on the record before us now and in the original appeal, we grant
Appellants' Request to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision,
but we deny Appellants' Request to make any changes in our Decision.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.52(b).
REHEARING DENIED
6