Ex parte JOSEPH et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 27, 1998

08062492 (B.P.A.I. May. 27, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 14, 1993. According to appellants,1
this application is a continuation of Application 07/526,215, filed May 21,
1990. (Abandoned).
1
Paper No. 27
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JOHN V. JOSEPH,
MARK B. SHADOWENS, CRAIG W. THOMPSON
and JOHN CHUNG-LIN CHEN
______________
Appeal No. 95-1599
Application 08/062,492 1
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
8 through 13 and 19 through 32.
Appeal No. 95-1599
Application 08/062,492
2
The disclosed invention relates to a change management
system for specifying and managing changes to an object in
response to received calls from an application that is
independent of the change management system.
Claim 26 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
26. A change management system for in response to received
calls from an application independent of said changed management
system specifying and managing changes to an object and a
plurality of groupings of a plurality of said object comprising,
in combination:
a version abstract machine including a first instruction
set, said version abstract machine responsive to said received
calls from said application to said first instruction set for
specifying and managing evolution of said object as a version
graph having a version graph name;
a configuration abstract machine including a second
instruction set, said configuration abstract machine responsive
to said received calls from said application to said second
instruction set for specifying and managing composition of each
of said plurality of groupings of said plurality of said object
as a configuration graph having a configuration graph name; and
a processor machine, said processor machine responsive to
said version abstract machine and said configuration abstract
machine for executing said first instruction set and said second
instruction set.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Leblang et al. (Leblang) 4,809,170 Feb. 28, 1989
Appeal No. 95-1599
Application 08/062,492
3
Claims 8 through 13 and 19 through 32 stand rejected under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 8 through 13 and 19 through 32 stand rejected under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being based upon a non-
enabling disclosure.
Claims 8 through 13 and 19 through 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Leblang.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the disclosed and claimed invention,
we find that claims 8 through 13 and 19 through 32 are definite,
are based upon an enabling disclosure, and are patentable over
the applied prior art. Accordingly, all of the rejections are
reversed.
Turning first to the indefiniteness rejection of claims
8 through 13 and 19 through 32, the examiner finds (Answer, page
3) problems with respect to precisely what functions are being
performed by the version abstract means and the configuration
Appeal No. 95-1599
Application 08/062,492
4
abstract means of claim 26. According to the examiner (Answer,
page 3), “the functions being performed by the version abstract
machine and configuration abstract machine are not significantly
further described in detail in the specification, with the result
that the full scope and complexity of the claimed functions being
performed by the two abstract machines are not presented.” The
examiner’s contentions to the contrary notwithstanding, appel-
lants’ disclosure (specification, pages 3 through 8) explains in
great detail the functions performed by both the version abstract
machine and the configuration abstract machine.” The data
structure of the version abstract machine (Figure 4) clearly
shows how the “evolution” of object 72 is specified and managed
via the use of a “version graph” 70. The other versions of
object 72 are located at nodes 74, 76, 78, 82, 84, 92 and 94
(specification, page 11). The data structure of the config-
uration abstract machine (Figure 5) clearly shows how the nodes
320, 340, 360 and 380 are connected to form configuration graph
300. Each node models the object (specification, page 13). The
version abstract machine and the configuration abstract machine
“manage name spaces to map machine states 28 and 27 respectively
[Figure 1] into character string names” (specification, page 11)
(emphasis added). With respect to the examiner’s concerns
Appeal No. 95-1599
Application 08/062,492
5
(Answer, pages 3 and 4) about the relationship of the “processor
machine” and the two abstract machines, appellants explain
throughout the disclosure that the two abstract machines are part
of a change management virtual machine (CMVM) 20 (Figure 1), and
that the CMVM 20 is a “processor machine” that executes “said
first instruction set and said second instruction set.” In claim
8, the version abstract machine is the “structure” for performing
the claimed “functions” (Answer, page 4). In claims 19 and 20,
the “plurality of said object” (Answer, pages 4 and 5) refers to
the objects at each of the nodes (Figure 4). In claims 24 and
25, the “structure” (Answer, page 5) for performing the claimed
functions is the “version abstract machine” and the “config-
uration abstract machine,” respectively. The “pointer” (Answer,
page 5) in claims 29 and 31 is illustrated in Figure 7 wherein
the truck engine configuration node 540 points to version graph
600 for specific versions of the truck engine. In claim 32, the
“collection of functions” (Answer, pages 5 and 6) is performed by
the version abstract machine, the configuration abstract machine
and the processor machine. Thus, the claims do, in fact, set out
and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the application
Appeal No. 95-1599
Application 08/062,492
A data structures programming course teaches graphing a tree with2
nodes.
6
disclosure. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236,
238 (CCPA 1971). The rejection of claims 8 through 13 and
19 through 32 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
reversed.
Turning next to the lack of enablement rejection, we agree
with the examiner that the change management system is a “complex
system” implemented with “abstract machines” (Answer, page 6).
We do not, however, agree with the examiner’s statement that “the
instant disclosure has no description of . . . programs or
software modules” (Answer, page 6). Appellants disclose
(specification, page 7) that the change management system is
implemented in Common Lisp and in C++. In view of the disclosure
of the programming languages, and the detailed instruction sets
(specification, pages 19 through 22) for the version abstract
machine and the configuration abstract machine, we are of the
opinion that a skilled data structures programmer could arrive2
at the “programs or software modules” (Answer, page 6) for the
disclosed and claimed invention without undue experimentation.
As indicated in Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d
1361, 1365, 42 USPQ 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 118
Appeal No. 95-1599
Application 08/062,492
7
S.Ct. 397 (1997), appellants’ disclosure is only required to
teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the claimed
invention without undue experimentation, and the scope of the
claims must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of
enablement provided by the specification to persons of ordinary
skill in the art. Since appellants’ claimed invention is enabled
by the disclosure, the rejection of claims 8 through 13 and 19
through 32 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
reversed.
Turning to the prior art rejection, Leblang discloses the
use of configuration management in a support system for Computer-
Aided Software Engineering (CASE) applications. A feature of the
support system is transparent retrieval of named versions of
program sequences/modules on a line-by-line basis. A modifi-
cation record is maintained for all changes to the modules in the
system build library by version numbers. An advantage of the
support system is that different programmers can simultaneously
use different versions of program modules for multiple concurrent
system work on the different versions (Figure 4, and column 8,
lines 50 through 53). Inasmuch as a line between two points can
be a graph, we agree with the examiner (Answer, page 8) that
“[t]he claim language ‘graph’ is so broad that it reads on the
Appeal No. 95-1599
Application 08/062,492
8
linear line of ascent and independent line of descent of Leblang
et al.” The examiner’s conclusion (Answer, page 8) that Leblang
“provides configuration and version management which meets the
very broadly claimed functions being performed by the version and
config-uration abstract machines” is correct insofar as it
relates to the broadness of the claims on appeal and the
disclosure of version management in Leblang. The configuration
management system disclosed by Leblang is only concerned with
versions of software modules, and not with configurations of
software modules. In short, the Leblang system discloses a
“version abstract machine,” but not a “configuration abstract
machine.” The claimed “received calls from said application”
“independent of said change management system,” and the claimed
“first instruction set and said second instruction set” have not
been addressed by the examiner. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 8 through 13 and 19 through 32 is reversed.
Appeal No. 95-1599
Application 08/062,492
9
DECISION
The rejections of claims 8 through 13 and 19 through 32
under the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112, and
35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 95-1599
Application 08/062,492
10
Robert L. Troike
Patent Department
Texas Instruments Incorporated
P. O. Box 655474, MS 219
Dallas, TX 75265
KWH/cam