Ex Parte Muller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

11567969 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111567,969 12/07/2006
46321 7590 03/23/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Muller
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.
CAM920060124US1 (156) 8507
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL MULLER,
ANDREW L. SCHIRMER, and PAUL B. MOODY
Appeal2014-001082 1
Application 11/567 ,9692
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1. Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
May 16, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed October 28, 2013), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed August 27, 2013), and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed December 18, 2012).
2. Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal2014-001082
Application 11/567 ,969
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates generally "to the field of
collaborative computing and more particularly to the status awareness of
objects in a collaborative computing environment" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for lifecycle model instance objectification of
non-activity objects in an activity thread, the method comprising:
[a] rendering an activity thread within an activity map for
an activity-centric collaborative tool;
[b] creating an instance of a lifecycle model comprising a
hierarchy of stages of an activity, by lifecycle management logic
executing in memory of a computer;
[c] objectifying a non-activity object in the activity thread
with the lifecycle model instance.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Charisius (US 2002/0075293 Al, pub. June
20, 2002) and McCauley (US 2005/0251505 Al, pub. Nov. 10, 2005).
Claims 2, 8, 9, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Charisius, McCauley, and Official Notice.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Charisius, McCauley, and Ly (US 2004/0017400 Al, pub. Jan. 29,
2004).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1-19 as a group (Appeal Br. 4, 8-9). We
select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or
fall with independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal2014-001082
Application 11/567 ,969
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
combination of Charisius and McCauley fails to disclose or suggest
"creating an instance of a lifecycle model comprising a hierarchy of stages
of an activity, by lifecycle management logic executing in memory of a
computer," as recited by limitation [b] of independent claim 1 (see Appeal
Br. 4--9; see also Reply Br. 2---6).
Instead we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Charisius
and McCauley discloses the argued limitation (Ans. 3-5 and 14--16 (citing
Charisius i-fi-199-102, 145-146, Figs. 2, 4, 37; McCauley i-fi-197, 101-105)).
Charisius is directed to a "system for creating and activating a project
plan, and animating the activation of the project plan" (Charisius i16) which
includes an "integration tool [that] allows a user to model a business process
or workflow, to create and activate a project plan based on the workflow,
and to track the progress of the activated project plan" (id. i1 78). More
particularly, Charisius discloses that its system includes "a Web-based
'Distributed Authoring and Versioning' server that operates as a virtual file
system to allow more than one user to view the same workflow or project
plan, to provide persistent storage, to monitor the progress of an activated
project plan, to simultaneously create plans from the same workflow" (id.
i-f 10). In this regard, Charisius discloses that its system utilizes a WebDA V
server which allows multiple users on disparate computer systems to "view
the same workflow or project plan, monitor the progress of an activated
project plan, or simultaneously create and activate different plans from the
same workflow" (id. i1 78; see also id. i-fi-1 84--86). Charisius discloses
3
Appeal2014-001082
Application 11/567 ,969
WebDA V protocol defines a WebDA V resource to be a
collection (e.g., a directory or folder on WebDA V Storage 142)
or a collection member (e.g., a file or Web page on WebDA V
Storage 142). Each WebDAV resource has a content file and
properties associated with the content file. The properties
include the creation date, the author, and the access rights for the
WebDA V resource. The WebDA V protocol specifies the
methods to create, delete, move, and copy a WebDA V resource.
(Id. ii 87).
Charisius further discloses that its system allows users "to define a
condition model, i.e., an input condition or an output condition, for an
activity of a workflow" (id. ii 99) based on one of "a document-type
condition and a logic-type condition" (id. ii 100). Charisius discloses that
the properties of the "document-type condition model" include a location
property and state property (id. ii 101) wherein the state property "indicates
the allowable states of the document or artifact" in terms of "'DRAFT' to
'APPROVED"' (id. ii 102; see also id. ii 146).
McCauley is directed to an information lifecycle workflow integration
system which "relates to content management, and in particular, versioning
content and providing definable content lifecycles" (McCauley ii 33).
McCauley discloses that its system utilizes a "virtual or federated content
repository" (VCR) which is "a logical representation of one or more
individual content repositories" that "appear and behave as a single content
repository from the standpoint of application layer 120" (id. ii 49).
McCauley discloses
a model for representing hierarchy information, content and data
types is shared between the API and the SPI. In this model, a
node can represent hierarchy information, content or a schema
information. Hierarchy nodes can serve as a containers for other
nodes in the namespace akin to a file subdirectory in a
4
Appeal2014-001082
Application 11/567 ,969
hierarchical file system. Schema nodes represent predefined data
types. Content nodes represent content/data. Nodes can have a
shape defined by their properties. A property associates a name,
a data type and an optional [] value which is appropriate for the
type. In certain of these embodiments, the properties of content
nodes contain values.
(Id. i-f 54). More particularly, McCauley discloses
content and schema nodes can follow lifecycles. In certain
aspects of these embodiments, a lifecycle can set forth: a set of
states through which a node can pass; actions that can occur as
part of or resulting from state transitions; and actors that can
participate in the lifecycle. By way of illustration, lifecycles can
be used to model an organization's content approval process.
(Id. i-f 97). McCauley further discloses that "a state change can be initiated
by a user interacting with the node through a tool and/or by a process
interacting with the node through the VCR API" (id. i-f 101 ).
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Charisius
fails to disclose or suggest "creating an instance of a lifecycle model," as
recited by limitation [b ], because the Examiner improperly construes "the
integral claim element 'lifecycle model'" to read on Charisius' s disclosure
regarding document state properties "DRAFT and APPROVED" (see
Appeal Br. 6-7 (citing Charisius i-f 146)). More particularly, Appellants
argue their "[S]pecification indicates that a lifecycle model instance
comprises a hierarchy of stages of an activity as opposed to a more unitary
complete and not complete status," and as such, Charisius fails to disclose
the argued limitation (see Appeal Br. 6-8).
However, Appellants' argument is not persuasive at least because
representative independent claim 1 is rejected as unpatentable over the
combination of Charisius and McCauley, and not over Charisius alone. See
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-
5
Appeal2014-001082
Application 11/567 ,969
obviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.") (citation omitted). Here, the Examiner does not rely solely on
Charisius to address "creating an instance of a lifecycle model comprising a
hierarchy of stages of an activity," as recited by limitation [b] of independent
claim 1; but rather, relies on the lifecycle design tool disclosed in Charisius
to address creating a lifecycle model in combination with McCauley's
disclosure regarding a series of property state transitions through a lifecycle
which define which actions have taken place (e.g., "draft," "ready for
approval," "published") to address a "hierarchy of stages of an activity," as
called for by independent claim 1 (see Ans. 3-5). We note that Appellants
have presented no persuasive evidence and/or technical arguments with
respect to the Examiner's asserted combination or explained why the
modification proposed by the Examiner is more than the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions.
Notwithstanding, to the extent the Examiner also relies on Charisius
to disclose the argued limitation, we agree with the Examiner that Charisius
discloses "creating an instance of a lifecycle model comprising a hierarchy
of stages of an activity," as recited by limitation [b] of independent claim 1
(see Ans. 3--4, 14--16). In making this determination, we note that
Appellants have not directed us to any special definition in the Specification
for the word "hierarchy," as it appears in the term "hierarchy of stages;" and,
after reviewing Appellants' Specification, we are unable to find any such
clear and explicit definition for the word.
Instead, the Specification provides several non-limiting examples (see
e.g., Spec. i-f 16) and describes broadly that "[t]he hierarchy can be a simple
6
Appeal2014-001082
Application 11/567 ,969
sequence of stages from inception to completion, or a complex tree of many
different branches" (id.). Therefore, in the absence of an explicit definition,
the Examiner may adopt the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
consistent with the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, we agree with the Examiner that Charisius's
disclosure regarding document state properties which "identify possible
values for a state property of a document condition that is created using the
document-type condition model" wherein "the responsible owner of an
activated task may change the state property of a document condition (e.g.,
from 'DRAFT' to 'APPROVED')," as disclosed in Charisius at paragraph
146, constitutes "creating an instance of a lifecycle model comprising a
hierarchy of stages of an activity," as recited by independent claim 1, under
a broad, but reasonable, interpretation (see Ans. 16).
We note this interpretation is commensurate with the ordinary and
customary meaning of "hierarchy" which is generally understood to mean
"1. [a] group of persons or things organized into successive ranks or grades
with each level subordinate to the one above"3 and reasonable in view of
Appellants' Specification. Thus, Charisius discloses "creating an instance of
a lifecycle model comprising a hierarchy of stages of an activity," as recited
by independent claim 1.
Appellants also argue "that in Charisius or McCauley the 'states' refer
to the state properties of the document itself, not the activity meta-data of the
activity with which the non-activity object (such as a document) is
3 See The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
accessed at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ hierarchy (last visited on
March 12, 2016).
7
Appeal2014-001082
Application 11/567 ,969
associated within the activity thread" (Reply Br. 4; see also Appeal Br. 7).
However, as the Examiner points out, "[t]he activity is the creation of the
document" (Ans. 15), whereas "the process from drafting to approving is
considered as hierarchy stages of activity in creating the document" (id.).
Thus, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 2-19, which are not separately argued, and
fall with independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8