Ex Parte Himmelsbach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12639747 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/639,747 12/16/2009
131475 7590 03/30/2016
Dilworth IP - SAP
2 Corporate Drive, Suite 206
Trumbull, CT 06611
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gerhard Himmelsbach
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.
247-lOOUS 7424
EXAMINER
BULLOCK, JOSHUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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 GERHARD HIMMELSBACH, TILMAN BOHNENGEL,
and GREGOR RIEKEN
Appeal2014-006610
Application 12/639,747 1
Technology Center 2100
Before HUNG H. BUI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-17, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is SAP AG. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006610
Application 12/639,747
Invention
The claims are directed to a system and method for handling conflicts
during structure synchronization. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized.
1. A method comprising:
identifying a set of conflicts between a first structure
representing a physical structure of a product and a second
structure representing the physical structure of the product
during a process to synchronize a first structure with a second
structure, each conflict in the set representing a difference
between the physical structures;
generating an intermediate structure in a format of the
second structure the format of the second structure different
than the format of the first structure;
generating a proposal for resolution of each conflict in
the set of conflicts, the proposal szifficient to resolve the
conflict;
presenting at least one conflict from the set and at least
one proposed resolution to a user on an electronic display,
wherein the during the presenting the physical product structure
is represented and the conflicts are highlighted within the
graphical representation;
accepting a user selection of a resolution to the at least
one conflict; and
applying the resolution to the intermediate structure.
2
Appeal2014-006610
Application 12/639,747
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Alston
Novik
us 5,315, 709
US 2008/0195759 Al
Rejections
May 24, 1994
Aug. 14, 2008
(1) Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Alston. Non-Final Act. 3-7.
(2) Claims 3, 4, 7-11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alston and Novik. Non-Final Act. 7-
12.
ANALYSIS
Section 102 - Independent Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
1, because Alston fails to disclose "generating a proposal for resolution of
each conflict, the proposal sufficient to resolve each conflict". App. Br. 9-
11; Reply Br. 3-5. Appellants argue Alston allows a user to select from all
possible choices of actions that could be taken in light of the existing
condition, which does not disclose the generation of a proposal. App. Br. 9.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Alston discloses
providing proposals for resolving a conflict between a source and a target.
Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 2 (citing Alston, col. 15, 11. 26-49). Here, Alston
provides an example of a particular instance, i.e. MAP-MATCH but no
NAMEMATCH, eliciting the action MERGE/CONFLICT SOURCE, which
requires the user to resolve a conflict between the source design and a set of
targets by selecting an appropriate sub-action. Id. The disputed claim
3
Appeal2014-006610
Application 12/639,747
language reads on Alston's proposal of a particular action,
MERGE/CONFLICT SOURCE, to resolve a particular conflict, MAP-
MATCH but no NAMEMATCH. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Alston discloses "generating a proposal for
resolution of each conflict, the proposal sufficient to resolve each conflict,"
as recited in independent claim 1.
Section 102 - Independent Claim 12
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
12, because Alston fails to disclose "generate a single preferred proposal for
resolution of each conflict in the set of conflicts, the single preferred
proposal selected by the processor from a plurality of possible resolutions of
the conflict." App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 5---6. In particular, Appellants
argue there is no disclosure in Alston, explicit or inherent, of a single
preferred proposal for each conflict. App. Br. 12.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Alston discloses a single
preferred proposal for resolving a conflict. Non-Final Act. 6; Ans. 3. As
explained above with regard to independent claim 1, Alston provides an
example of a particular instance, i.e. MAP-MATCH but no NAMEMATCH,
eliciting a particular action, MERGE/CONFLICT SOURCE, which is a
single preferred proposal to resolve a conflict between the source design and
a set of targets. Ans. 3 (citing Alston, col. 15, 11. 26-49). Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that Alston discloses "generate a single
preferred proposal for resolution of each conflict in the set of conflicts, the
single preferred proposal selected by the processor from a plurality of
possible resolutions of the conflict," as recited in independent claim 12.
4
Appeal2014-006610
Application 12/639,747
Section 102 - Dependent Claims 5, 16
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 5
and 16, because Alston fails to disclose "comparing the intermediate
structure with the second structure." App. Br. 13-14. Appellants argue that
the Examiner failed to maintain a consistent interpretation of "intermediate
structure" and that Alston fails to disclose an "intermediate structure." App.
Br. 13. We disagree.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Alston discloses synchronization of
two objects, wherein these objects are representative of a first and second
structure. Ans. 4 (citing Alston, col. 3, 11. 54--55, 66----67; col. 4, 11. 1-11, 48-
60). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Alston discloses that the target
and source objects have an intermediate "conversion object"; wherein this
object is an "intermediate structure" under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claims. Ans. 4 (citing Alston, col. 4, 11. 12-27).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Alston
discloses "comparing the intermediate structure with the second structure,"
as recited in dependent claim 5 and 16.
Section 103 - Claims 3, 4, 7-11, 14, and 15 based on Hindsight
Appellants contend the Examiner improperly rejected claims 3, 4, 7-
11, 14, and 15 under Section 103, because Alston and Novik are unrelated
references "where the underlying technology is so disparate that no one of
ordinary skill in the art would consider the combination." App. Br. 15.
While admitting Alston is a relevant reference, Appellants argue "nothing in
Novik would commend it to the attention of one seeking to solve problems
addressed by Alston or Appellant's invention." App. Br. 15 (emphasis
removed). Thus, Appellants argue, the combination of Alston and Novik
5
Appeal2014-006610
Application 12/639,747
proposed by the Examiner is based on inappropriate hindsight. App. Br. 15,
16; Reply Br. 6. We disagree.
Regarding Appellants' argument that Alston and Novik are "unrelated
references" (App. Br. 15), a reference qualifies as prior art for a
determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In
re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Two separate tests define the
scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "A reference
is reasonably pertinent if ... it is one which, because of the matter with
which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's
attention in considering his problem." Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.
Alston relates to a computer system for translating objects in one data
model to objects in a second data model. Alston explains that such
information data models are used to model business environments and
assure efficiency of operations. The computer systems involved in modeling
such environments necessarily involve complex computer-level
manipulations, since the modeled environment consists of many complex
and interrelated objects. Such information systems exploit database
management technology to promote efficient design, enhance file
maintenance and modification, eliminate data file redundancy, and provide
substantial documentation regarding data file structure. Alston, col. 1, 11. 6-
22.
6
Appeal2014-006610
Application 12/639,747
Novik relates to distributed data systems that share common
information across multiple devices to provide an efficient way to represent
what changes to the common information of which they are aware and what
changes of which they are unaware, and to resolving conflicts for such
changes when they occur. Novik, i-f 6. Novik discloses efficient and flexible
conflict resolution mechanisms for distributed devices in data
synchronization systems. Novik, i-f 29. In Novik, an efficient mechanism is
described to ensure whenever a device has access to other synchronizing
device(s) in a loosely coupled network, the device will exchange knowledge
with the other device(s) in order to determine which changes should be
retrieved by the device and conveyed to the other device(s), and what
conflicts to resolve as part of the synchronization operation according to a
flexible set of conflict resolution policies. Id.
Appellants' Specification explains:
Once that product has reached a certain level of maturity, the
product data, typically including drawings, documents and
master data for the materials and parts list, it is handed over to
manufacturing. However, the design parts list from product
development, typically referred to as an engineering bill of
materials or EBOM, generally does not have the one-to-one
correspondence with a manufacturing parts list often referred to
as the manufacturing bill of materials or MBOM. Thus, a process
is necessary to synchronize the source structure (the EBOM)
with the target structure (the MBOM). During this
synchronization, conflicts between the structure and/or attributes
of the structure are often identified.
Spec. ,-r 2.
Appellants' Specification further explains that the synchronization
process involves a comparer comparing a proposed model with an existing
7
Appeal2014-006610
Application 12/639,747
target model and identifying additional conflicts existing between those
structures. Spec. i-f 12. Common conflicts found by the comparer include
missing attributes or extra attributes (i.e., missing or extra "data"). Id.
Both Alston and Novik use database management technology to
eliminate data redundancy, precisely what Appellants' Specification
describes occurs during the synchronization process. Accordingly, we find
that Alston and Novik are properly combinable to arrive at Appellants'
claimed subject matter because they both address a particular problem with
which the inventors are involved. Appellants have not persuaded us that an
artisan would not have reasonably combined Alston and Novik in the
manner proffered by the Examiner but for having the benefit of the claims to
use as a guide. We are, therefore, not persuaded that the Examiner engaged
in impermissible hindsight in rejecting the claims under Section 103.
Section 103 - Independent Claim 7
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
7, because the combination of Alston and Novik does not teach or suggest "a
conflict manager used by the synchronization process to collect conflicts
between the source structure and target structure and to proposed [sic] a
resolution to the conflicts collected." App. Br. 16 (emphasis removed).
Appellants argue Novik's resolution policy is unrelated to resolution of
conflicts between product structures and there is no proposal presented to a
user for resolution of conflicts between a source structure and a target
structure as claimed. App. Br. 17.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Novik teaches a conflict
log which acts as a manager for proposal of resolutions to conflicts. Ans. 5
(citing Novik, i-f 59). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Novik
8
Appeal2014-006610
Application 12/639,747
explicitly teaches conflicts resolved according to a conflict resolution
policy. Id. Considering the teachings of Alston discussed above with
respect to independent claims 1 and 12, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that the combination of Alston and Novik teaches "a conflict
manager used by the synchronization process to collect conflicts between the
source structure and target structure and to proposed [sic] a resolution to the
conflicts collected" as recited in independent claim 7.
Section 103 -Dependent Claim 9
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 9,
because the combination of Alston and Novik does not teach or suggest "a
persistent storage unit to retain a prior resolution of a conflict which may be
used as a basis for a proposed resolution of a same or similar future
conflict." App. Br. 18. Appellants argue there is no indication that a
resolution of a conflict is stored in Novik's conflict log as cited by the
Examiner. Id.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Novik teaches a log
capable of storage and also teaches storage for resolutions of earlier times,
thereby providing prior conflict resolution information. Ans. 5 (citing
Novik, Fig. 8; i-f 59). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding
that the combination of Alston and Novik teaches or suggests "a persistent
storage unit to retain a prior resolution of a conflict which may be used as a
basis for a proposed resolution of a same or similar future conflict," as
recited in dependent claim 9.
Section 103 -Dependent Claim 10
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim
10, because the combination of Alston and Novik does not teach or suggest
9
Appeal2014-006610
Application 12/639,747
"a rule engine accessible by the conflict manager to apply a rule set to
generate the proposed resolution of the conflict." App. Br. 19. Appellants
argue that nothing indicates that Novik's conflict resolution policies are
selected by a rule engine. Id.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Novik teaches a conflict
manager with associated conflict policies, wherein these policies are
rules and the manager is a "rule engine" given the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claims. Ans. 6 (citing Novik, i-f 59). The Examiner also
finds, and we agree, Novik teaches resolution policies, wherein these
policies provide rules for resolution of conflicts. Ans. 6 (citing Novik, i-f 60).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Alston and Novik teaches or suggests "a rule engine
accessible by the conflict manager to apply a rule set to generate the
proposed resolution of the conflict," as recited in dependent claim 10.
Section 103 -Dependent Claim 11
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim
11, because the combination of Alston and Novik does not teach or suggest
"a user interface generator to cause a display to display a graphical user
interface (GUI) to permit a user to accept, reject, or modify the proposed
resolution to the conflicts." App. Br. 19. Appellants argue that in Novik, it
would not be desirable or even workable that each time a node connects to a
distributed network, the user had to evaluate and decide how to resolve all
existing conflicts on the data between the node connecting node and other
nodes on the network. App. Br. 20. We are not persuaded.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Novik teaches a user interface
which presents resolved conflicts for the user's acceptance. Ans. 6 (citing
10
Appeal2014-006610
Application 12/639,747
Novik, i137). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Alston and Novik teaches or suggests "a user interface
generator to cause a display to display a graphical user interface (GUI) to
permit a user to accept, reject, or modify the proposed resolution to the
conflicts," as recited in dependent claim 11.
Section 103 -Dependent Claim 15
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim
15, because the combination of Alston and Novik does not teach or suggest
"grouping a subset of the set of conflicts in a defined order to ensure
interdependencies of attributes are correctly handled." App. Br. 20.
Appellants argue a subset of conflicts is not data grouped for conflict
resolution, but rather is a set of the conflicts themselves. Id.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Novik teaches conflict
detection of sets of data which have been grouped together, and also teaches
grouped sets of data for conflict resolution. Ans. 7 (citing Novik, Fig. 2B;
i-fi-134--38). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Alston and Novik teaches or suggests "grouping a subset of
the set of conflicts in a defined order to ensure interdependencies of
attributes are correctly handled," as recited in dependent claim 15.
Remaining Claims
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to remaining claims 2--4, 6, 8, 13, 14, and 17. See
App. Br. 9-21. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these
claims. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv).
11
Appeal2014-006610
Application 12/639,747
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-1 7.
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).
AFFIRMED
12