10402830 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 8, 2010)

Ex Parte Offenmuller

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 8, 2010

10402830 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 8, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte WERNER OFFENMULLER ___________ Appeal 2009-004180 Application 10/402,830 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Decided: April 9, 2010 ____________ Before JAY P. LUCAS, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and THU ANN DANG, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2009-004180 Application 10/402,830 STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION The invention on appeal relates generally to managing software applications. More particularly, Appellant’s invention is directed to navigation in industrial installations and/or in industrial processes using software applications, particularly MES applications. (Spec. 2). ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 1. A system for integrating and/or managing software applications, particularly MES applications, comprising: - at least one computer unit for storing the software applications, - at least one framework program coupling the software applications, - a display apparatus for - defining and/or displaying workflow information regarding prescribable software applications in a first screen area, - displaying state information characterizing prescribable software applications in a second screen area, and - at least one adapter for connecting the software applications to the framework program, with provision being made for communication between the software applications using the framework program. 2 Appeal 2009-004180 Application 10/402,830 PRIOR ART The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence: Schwenke US 6,556,950 B1 Apr. 29, 2003 THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Schwenke. GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of representative claim 1.1 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ISSUES Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have determined that the following issues are dispositive in this appeal: Issue 1: Under § 102, did the Examiner err by finding that Schwenke discloses or describes “a display apparatus for . . . defining and/or displaying workflow information regarding prescribable software applications in a first screen area? (Claim 1). Issue 2: Under § 102, did the Examiner err by finding that Schwenke discloses or describes “at least one adapter for connecting the software 1 This decision considers only those arguments actually made. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). 3 Appeal 2009-004180 Application 10/402,830 applications to the framework program, with provision being made for communication between the software applications using the framework program?” (Claim 1). PRINCIPLES OF LAW During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). Anticipation under § 102 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference. In other words, if granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). 4 Appeal 2009-004180 Application 10/402,830 FINDINGS OF FACT In our analysis infra, we rely on the following findings of fact (FF) that are supported by the record: Appellant’s Specification 1. Appellant’s Specification defines “workflow” as a “succession of actions.” (Spec. 7, ll. 11-12). 2. Appellant’s Specification describes adapters AD1-AD3 that connect the respective MES applications A4-A6 to the framework program IF. The adapters are thus the coupling blocks between the framework IF and the applications. The adapters can also be used to connect inherently heterogeneous applications to one another. (Spec. 11, l. 28 – 12 l. 4). The Schwenke Reference 3. Schwenke Fig. 7 discloses a Designer Studio window. Ref. 720 is a timing diagram panel for sequencing workcell operations. (Col. 110, ll. 19-25). 4. Schwenke describes a control system. Elements of the control system are encapsulated in objects of an object-oriented framework within a control assembly. The control assembly is the fundamental building block for providing object-oriented control of the enterprise. (Col. 83, ll. 58-65) 5. Schwenke describes that writing a framework program relinquishes the detailed flow of control within the program to the framework. 5 Appeal 2009-004180 Application 10/402,830 This approach allows the creating of more complex systems that work together in interesting ways, as opposed to isolated programs, having custom code, being created over and over again for similar problems. (Col. 88, ll. 14-21). 6. Schwenke discloses “a user interface 526 which may include a display (e.g., the personal computer’s CRT or LCF display, or a peripheral display device) . . . .” (Col. 103, ll. 24-27). ANALYSIS ISSUE 1 We decide the question of whether the Examiner erred by finding that Schwenke discloses or describes “a display apparatus for . . . defining and/or displaying workflow information regarding prescribable software applications in a first screen area. (Claim 1). Appellant contends that these limitations are not disclosed, either expressly or inherently, by Schwenke. (App. Br. 8).2 At the outset, we note that claim 1 recites alternative language (defining and/or displaying workflow information . . .). Therefore, we broadly but reasonably construe claim 1 to require only one of defining or displaying workflow information. As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 6), we find Schwenke expressly discloses the use of a display. (FF 6). 2 We note that Appellant in the principal Brief sets forth the standard for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. (App. Br. 7). However, the claims on appeal were rejected as being anticipated by Schwenke under 35 U.S.C. §102(e). (See Ans. 3). 6 Appeal 2009-004180 Application 10/402,830 Nevertheless, Appellant particularly argues that Schwenke does not disclose “workflow information.” (App. Br. 8). We note that Appellant’s Specification broadly defines “workflow” as a succession of actions. (FF 1). Appellant contends that Schwenke does not disclose “‘a succession of individual work steps for activities’ or a ‘succession of actions,’ much less a display apparatus for displaying the same.” (App. Br. 8). We disagree. Based upon our review of the record, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to this issue. (Ans. 5-6). In particular, we find that Schwenke discloses a display apparatus (Designer Studio window on a display), that includes a timing diagram panel 720 for sequencing workcell operations (“displaying workflow information”). (FF 3 and 6). Therefore, we find that Schwenke discloses “workflow” as defined by Appellant, and recited in claim 1. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Schwenke discloses or describes “a display apparatus for . . . defining and/or displaying workflow information regarding prescribable software applications in a first screen area. (Claim 1). ISSUE 2 We decide the question of whether the Examiner erred by finding that Schwenke discloses or describes “at least one adapter for connecting the software applications to the framework program, with provision being made for communication between the software applications using the framework program,” as recited in claim 1. At the outset, we observe that Appellant fails to point to any particular supporting definition for the disputed claim term “adapter.” (See App. Br. 9- 7 Appeal 2009-004180 Application 10/402,830 10). Therefore, based upon our review of the record, we accept and adopt the Examiner’s construction of the claimed “adapter.” (Ans. 6). Specifically, we broadly but reasonably construe the clamed “adapter” as not being limited to a physical part but rather may encompass software functionality that allows multiple applications to communicate in the context of a system “framework.” (See Id.). Appellant contends that “the interface of Schwenke is suited only to allow an interface designer to query a control assembly in order to retrieve properties of viewable elements. Consequently, Schwenke’s interface is not suited to provide communications between different software applications within its framework.” (App. Br. 9). We disagree for the reasons discussed infra. As noted above, we find that Schwenke discloses a control system that comprises elements that are encapsulated in objects of an object-oriented framework. (FF 4). Thus, we find Schwenke discloses that the elements (objects) have the functionality (adapter) to communicate within the “object- oriented framework.” (See also FF 5). Thus, we find Schwenke discloses objects that provide functionality for communications between the software applications using the framework program, within the meaning of Appellant’s representative claim 1. While Appellant attempts to distinguish the invention on appeal by arguing that, “[f]or example, the present application allows, without limitation, drag-and-drop functionality among different applications” (App. Br. 9), we note that these argued “drag-and-drop” limitations are not recited in any of the claims before us on appeal.3 3 Limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification. In re 8 Appeal 2009-004180 Application 10/402,830 For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting representative claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-27 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings of facts and analysis above: The Examiner did not err by finding that Schwenke discloses or describes “a display apparatus for . . . defining and/or displaying workflow information regarding prescribable software applications in a first screen area.” (Claim 1). The Examiner did not err by finding that Schwenke discloses or describes “at least one adapter for connecting the software applications to the framework program, with provision being made for communication between the software applications using the framework program.” (Claim 1). Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). 9 Appeal 2009-004180 Application 10/402,830 ORDER We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED pgc King & Spalding LLP 401 Congress Avenue Suite 3200 Austin, TX 78701 10