Ex Parte Linder et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 23, 2009

10103123 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JAMES DARROW LINDER
and XUQIANG WU
____________
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,1231
Technology Center 2100
____________
Decided:2 June 23, 2009
____________
Before LEE E. BARRETT, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JOHN A. JEFFERY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1-44. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Filed March 22, 2002, titled "Electronically-Accessible Product
Description."
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a
civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided
date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from
the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention
The invention relates to a method of describing products in an
electronically-accessible format including receiving a product geometry
description to describe the geometry of a portion of a product, receiving a
product attribute description to describe a non-geometric attribute of the
portion of the product, and storing the product geometry description and the
product attribute description in an electronically-accessible format.

The claims
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of describing products in an electronically-
accessible format, the method comprising:
receiving a product geometry description to describe the
geometry of a portion of a product;
receiving a user-defined design rule for a product attribute;
receiving a user-defined product attribute description to
describe a non-geometric attribute of the portion of the product, the
product attribute description being determined based on the user-
defined design rule; and
storing the product geometry description, the user-defined
design rule and the product attribute description in an electronically-
accessible format.

The references
Taylor 5,991,528 Nov. 23, 1999
Han US 2002/0052807 May 02, 2002
(filed Jun. 26, 2001)
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

3
The rejections
Claims 1-8 and 12-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Han.
Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Han and Taylor.

FACTS
The invention
The invention relates to describing products in an electronically-
accessible format. The design is described using "geometric information"
and "non-geometric information, hereinafter referred to as attribute
information, examples of which include product finish, product assembly
information, product weld information, product tolerances, product
constituent material, product constituent material processing, product
texture, and product color" (Spec. 1: 9-12).
The Specification states that "[t]he product attribute description may
be determined based on a design rule" (Spec. 2: 9-10). For example:
The product attribute description may be a numerical value of the
non-geometric attribute described by the product attribute description.
The design rule may bound a range of potential numerical values of
the product attribute description, and may provide a list of potential
product attribute descriptions.
. . .
The product attribute description may be determined based on
the design rule. The product attribute description may describe a
finish, an assembly, a weld, a tolerance, a constituent material, a
texture, or a color of the portion of the product.
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

4
Spec. 2: 32 to 3: 11.
Design rules are further discussed as follows with respect to the
electronically-accessible product definition data structure in Figure 4:
The design rules or links to design rules encoded in design rules
470, 475, 480 may be used to determine the respective attribute value
or to bound the range of the respective attribute value. Design rules
470, 475, 480 may also be used to incorporate a technical knowledge
base into the product description process. For example, Design Rule
1A 470 may encode a list of potential constituent materials for the
product, while Design Rule lB. 1 475 may encode a list of potential
coverings or finishes for each of the constituent materials encoded in
Design Rule 1A 470. By selecting the potential coverings or finishes
available to populate Design Rule lB.1 475 based on the constituent
materials encoded in Design Rule 1A 470, technical and
manufacturing expertise may be included in the product attribute
description process. For example, a manufacturer may know that
certain types of chrome plating do not adhere well to certain material
substrates. By encoding this expertise directly into the product
attribute description process, product designers are able to
electronically access a broad knowledge base during product design.

Spec. 7: 21 to 8: 2.
The electronically-accessible format may include a "product attribute
display instance to describe how the product attribute description is to be
displayed" (Spec. 2: 14-15). As described in connection with Figure 4:
The display characteristics encoded in display instances 455,
460, 465 may include, for example, the size, color, positioning,
symbology, font, and the desirability of a representation of the
information encoded by product attribute records 420, 425, 430, 435
on an engineering drawing or other display. For example, display
instance 455 may indicate that no representation of Attribute
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

5
Value 1A is desired, whereas display instance 460 may indicate that
Attribute Value 1B is to be displayed on the lower left side of an
engineering drawing in small, boldface type with a lead line to a
selected portion of the product in the engineering drawing.
Spec. 7: 13-20.

Content of Han
Han describes a product design server systems for a design-to-order
product community. "The design-to-order product community is an on-line
community that provides a dynamic environment in which community
participants can interact on the fly and instantaneously respond to product
changes." Abstract.
Han describes that "the product definition data 60 encapsulates
pertinent product information data for a product" (¶ [0066]) (bolding
omitted). The types of data included in product definition data 60 are
illustrated in Figure 8. "These general types of data include product
identification (ID) data 8-1; part number data 8-2; alternate part number data
8-3; bill of materials data 8-4; document group data 8-5; product
specification data 8-6; product change history data 8-7; and, product
interaction rules data 8-8." Id. (bolding omitted).
The product definition data 60 describes products in an electronically-
accessible format. The most relevant data in the product definition data 60
for purposes of the rejection are the document group data 8-5 and the
product interaction rules data 8-8.
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

6
Han describes the document group data 8-5 as follows:
The document group data 8-5 contains attachment
documentation for a product. Examples of these document
attachments are design files, drawings, and other product-related
documents. However, process related documents such as engineering
change orders and requests for quote are not included in the document
group data 8-5. Thus, the document group data 8-5 serves, e.g., to
capture the design and drawing documentation. The document group
data 8-5 provides such information as geometric data, features, size
information, and other attributes (such as color, surface finish,
assembly process steps that must be performed, etc.). The document
group data 8-5 thus includes manufacturing specific information.
[Bolding omitted, emphasis added.]

¶ [0071].
Han describes the product interaction rules data 8-8 as follows:
The product interaction rules data 8-8 is used to represent
relationships or constraints among specification elements as well as
among products in an assembly configuration. Two types of rules
included in product interaction rules data 8-8 are InterProduct Rules
or InterSpecification Rules. An example usage of the
interspecification rules is described below with reference to FIG. 9A;
an example of usage of the inter-product rules is described below with
reference to FIG. 9C(1). A list of rules is shown in product
interaction rules data 8-8 in FIG. 8, including rule-1 through rule-i.
[Bolding omitted, emphasis added.]

¶ [0074]; see also ¶ [0089]. The product interaction rules specify how a part
may be designed, as for example, what attributes may be selected in
designing a pen (¶ [0076]).
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

7
Han describes that "a community participant or member uses the
product design application service 70P in order to make a modification
(which may be temporary) of the product definition data" (¶ [0083]).

DISCUSSION
Independent claims 1 and 32 and dependent claims 2-8, 12-17, and 33-36
Issues
Does Han teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 32?

Contentions
Appellants argue that "Han does not describe or suggest receiving a
product geometry description to describe the geometry of a portion of a
product, as recited in each of claims 1 and 32" (Br. 5, two places; Br. 6,
4 places) and, therefore, "Han necessarily cannot describe or suggest storing
the product geometry description in an electronically-accessible format, also
as recited in each of claims 1 and 32" (Br. 6-7).
Appellants also argue that "Han does not describe or suggest receiving
a user-defined design rule for a product attribute, as recited in each of
claims 1 and 32" (Br. 7) and, therefore, "Han necessarily cannot suggest
receiving a user-defined product attribute description to describe a
non-geometric attribute of the portion of the product, where the product
attribute description is determined based on the user-defined design rule, as
recited in each of claims 1 and 32" (id.).
Thus, Appellants argue each of the steps of claims 1 and 32.
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

8
The Examiner's statement of the rejection refers to Han, paragraph 89,
lines 1-4, for all limitations and additionally refers to the Abstract for the
design rule (Ans. 3).
In the response to the arguments, the Examiner finds that Han's
description that the service suites enable participants "to use a standard web
browser to create, find, access, understand, manipulate, and publish product
information (e.g., the product definition data 60) to enhance their unique
roles in the product lifecycle" (Abstract) anticipates "receiving a user-
defined design rule for a product attribute" as claimed (Ans. 14). The
Examiner finds that paragraph 20 of Han describes that the product
definition data includes "product interaction rules data" which can be created
and manipulated by participants, and which the Examiner considers to be a
"user-defined design rule for a product attribute" as claimed (id.).
The Examiner further finds (Ans. 14-15; Ans. 16) that the limitation
of "product geometry description to describe the geometry of a portion of a
product" is taught by paragraph 71 of Han, in particular, the statement that
"[t]he document group data 8-5 provides such information as geometric data,
features, size information, and other attributes (such as color, surface finish,
assembly process steps that must be performed, etc.)."
The Examiner apparently interprets Appellants' statement that "Han's
web browser-based application enables a user to create and manipulate
product information including geometric data" (Br. 5) as an admission of
what it says (Ans. 15). Appellants respond that the Examiner ignores
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

9
Appellants' plain statement that Han does not describe receiving a product
geometry description (Reply Br. 3).

Analysis
The product definition data 60 in Han, Figure 8, describes products in
an electronically-accessible format. "The document group data 8-5 provides
such information as geometric data, features, size information, and other
attributes (such as color, surface finish, assembly process steps that must be
performed, etc.)" (¶ 0071]). Thus, the document group data 8-5 part of the
product definition data 60 includes a "product geometry description to
describe the geometry of a portion of a product" and a "product attribute
description to describe a non-geometric attribute of a portion of a product"
as described by Appellants (whether Han describes a "user-defined" product
attribute will be discussed later).
Appellants argue that Han's descriptions of creating and manipulating
product information (Abstract; ¶ [0071]), product interaction rules on how
parts/products are to be combined (¶ [0074] and ¶ [0089]), authoring new
parts (¶ [0074] and ¶ [0076]), document attachments (¶ [0071]), and markup
tool (¶ [0056] do not teach "receiving" a product geometry description
(Br. 5-7). Appellants' reason is that "Han does not disclose a community
participant being able to enter this information" (Reply Br. 1).
We have two answers to Appellants' arguments. First, the claims do
not recite from whom or where the geometry descriptions, the design rule,
and the product attribute descriptions are received. The term "user" is not
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

10
defined in the claims. The data in the product definition data 60 must come
from somewhere and need not be received from the community participants
in order to meet the claim. Since any person or entity entering information
in the product definition data 60 is a "user," the attribute data in Han is a
"user-defined" product attribute description. Second, Han teaches that the
"application service suites . . . enable community participants, as
individuals or teams, to use a standard web browser to create, find, access,
understand, manipulate, and publish product information (e.g., the product
definition data 60)" (Abstract) and "[t]he product definition data 60 is
communicated to the participants in a manner so that the product definition
data 60 can be viewed, measured, interrogated, and manipulated (e.g.,
changed or marked up) as needed" (¶ [0066]), which teaches that any
community participant can enter any data in the product definition data 60,
by creating data or modifying existing data, which would include geometry
and product attribute description. The fact that Han only describes an
example of changing an engineering change order (ECO) (¶ [0083 et seq.]),
does not imply that Han is limited to changing only this data.
Therefore, we have narrowed the issues down to whether Han teaches
"receiving a user-defined design rule for a product attribute." Han teaches
"[t]he product interaction rules data 8-8 is used to represent relationships or
constraints among specification elements as well as among products in an
assembly configuration"(¶ [0074]). These rules can define product
attributes, such as a tip and barrel color for a pen: "a first rule 8-8-1 may
specify (for example) that the type of tip that the pen may have, permitting
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

11
either a felt tip, ballpoint, or fountain pen. A second rule 8-8-2 may specify
the color of the pen's barrel, e.g., either silver or gold." ¶ [0076]. These
rules are entered by a user, which, as noted, can be person or entity creating
the original product definition data 60 or a community participant.
Finally, since Han teaches the geometry descriptions, the design rule,
and the product attribute descriptions as part of the product definition
data 60, this data must be stored to be operated on. For example, Figure 9A
shows a product definition data memory.
Accordingly, we find that Han teaches all of the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 32.

Conclusion
Han teaches all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 32.
Appellants do not argue the separate patentability of the dependent claims,
so the rejection of these claims is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The rejection of claims 1-8, 12-17, and 32-36 is affirmed.

Independent claims 18 and 37 and dependent claims 19-24 and 38-42
Appellants argue that Han does not teach receiving a product
geometry description to describe the geometry of a portion of a product as
discussed with respect to claims 1 and 32 (Br. 7-8).
We find that Han teaches the argued limitation, as discussed in the
analysis of claims 1 and 32.
Appellants argue that Han does not teach the limitations of "receiving
a product attribute display instance to describe how the product attribute
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

12
description is to be displayed" and "basing a display of the product attribute
description adjacent a product geometry display on the product attribute
display instance" (Br. 8).
The Examiner refers to paragraph 89, lines 1-4, for the product
attribute display instance and to paragraph 56, lines 1-4, for the display
(Final Rej. 7; Ans. 6).
Appellants argue that these portions of Han do not describe the
claimed limitations (Br. 8).
Han does not directly address the issue of how data will be displayed.
Han describes that the applications server 40 supports different document
types that include CAD models and drawings, and web documents including
standard file types and viewable by browser. However, this does not quite
teach a product display instance or basing a display adjacent to a product
geometry display on the product display instance. Accordingly, we find that
Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's rejection. The rejection of
claims 18-24 and 37-42 is reversed.

Independent claims 25 and 43 and dependent claims 26-28
Appellants argued that Han does not teach receiving a product
geometry description to describe the geometry of a portion of a product and
receiving a user-defined design rule for a product attribute as discussed with
respect to claims 1 and 32 (Br. 8).
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

13
Because we find that Han teaches the argued limitation, as discussed
in the analysis of claims 1 and 32, the rejection of claims 25-28 and 43 is
affirmed.

Independent claims 29 and 44 and dependent claims 30 and 31
Appellants argued that Han does not teach receiving a product
geometry description to describe the geometry of a portion of a product and
receiving a user-defined design rule for a product attribute as discussed with
respect to claims 1 and 32 (Br. 8-9).
Because we find that Han teaches the argued limitation, as discussed
in the analysis of claims 1 and 32, the rejection of claims 29-31 and 44 is
affirmed.

Dependent claims 9-11
Appellants argue that the rejection of dependent claims 9-11 is
improper because Taylor fails to describe or suggest features missing from
Han as to independent claim 1 (Br. 9).
Because we find that Han teaches the limitations of claim 1, and
because Appellants do not argue the separate patentability of claims 9-11,
the obviousness rejection of claims 9-11 is affirmed.
Appeal 2008-003899
Application 10/103,123

14
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-17, 25-36, 43, and 44 are affirmed.
The rejection of claims 18-24 and 37-42 is reversed.
Requests for extensions of time are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(b).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022