Ex Parte Tsai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2018

13302913 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/302,913 11/22/2011 Kenwood Tsai
109422 7590 03/19/2018
Sprinkle IP Law Group/OPEN
1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 408
Austin, TX 78705
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.
OPEN4030-l 7576
EXAMINER
DWIVEDI, MARESH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2018 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 KENWOOD TSAI, HARISH RA WAT, XIAOTING TANG,
andPAYAM SHAHID!
Appeal2016-002677
Application 13/302,913
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 4--12, 16, 17, and 20-28, which are all the
claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is EMC Corporation
(App. Br. 1 ).
2 Claims 2, 3, 13-15, 18, and 19 have been canceled.
Appeal2016-002677
Application 13/302,913
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to controlling access to business data
(Abstract). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for controlling access to business process
data, comprising:
configuring a content management system ("CMS") to
store each business process in a CMS repository;
creating an instance of a first business process, wherein the
first business process comprises a first business process object;
creating a first instance of the first business process object
configured to contain business process data of the first business
process;
using the CMS to manage a function of associating the
first instance with a first access control list ("ACL") associated
with the first business process object at the time the first business
process was defined;
creating an instance of a different business process,
wherein the different business process comprises the first
business process object;
creating a second instance of the first business process
object configured to contain business process data of the
different business process;
using the CMS to manage a function of associating the
second instance with a second ACL associated with the first
business process object at the time the different business process
was defined; and
using the CMS to control access to the first instance and
the second instance in accordance with its associated ACL.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 4--12, 16, 17, 20, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Handysoft (BIZFlow by HANDYSOFT
2
Appeal2016-002677
Application 13/302,913
(hereinafter Handysoft), User Guide, Version 9.0, Copyright 2004) (see
Final Act. 2-30).
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Handysoft and Gregg (US 2003/0046589 Al; Mar. 6,
2003) (see Final Act. 31-32).
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Handysoft, Gregg, and Jost et al. (US 2005/0171833 Al; Aug. 4, 2005)
("Jost") (see Final Act. 32-33).
Claims 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Handysoft, Gregg, Jost, and Grainger (US 2002/0072920 Al; June 13,
2002) (see Final Act. 33-37).
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Handysoft, Gregg, Jost, Grainger, and Perlin et al. (US 2006/0174334
Al; Aug. 3, 2006) ("Perlin") (see Final Act. 37).
Appellants ' Contentions
1. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 12,
and 17, Appellants contend that the cited portions of Handysoft do not
disclose all the recited steps (App. Br. 11-25). Appellants specifically assert
Handysoft does not describe:
a. A CMS repository (App. Br. 12-15).
b. A business process object (App. Br. 15-18).
c. Two different business processes that each comprise the
same business process object (App. Br. 18-22).
d. Controlling access to the first and second instance of the
same business process object, each in accordance with their associated
ACL (App. Br. 22-25).
3
Appeal2016-002677
Application 13/302,913
2. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 11,
Appellants contend Handysoft does not describe the base claim 6 limitation
of "each of the access control lists indicates a type of access that an
application, a user, or a group of users is allowed" and the claim 11
limitation of "wherein access specifies that access is restricted if an
accessing party is a specific application, a specific user, or a specific group
of users" (App. Br. 26-29).
3. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 22,
Appellants contend the combination of Handysoft with Gregg does not teach
or suggest "each access control list indicating a type of access that an
application is allowed at the time a given business process instance is
executed" (App. Br. 29--30).
4. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 25,
Appellants contend the combination of Handysoft with Gregg, Jost, and
Grainger does not teach or suggest "wherein the second instance can be
accessed by the different application via search" (App. Br. 31-35).
5. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 28,
Appellants contend the combination of Handysoft with Gregg, Jost,
Grainger, and Perlin does not teach or suggest, while allowing access to the
second instance by the different application via search, "denying the
different application access to the first instance" (App. Br. 35-36).
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 4--12, 16, 17, 20,
and 21 as being anticipated by Handysoft because the reference fails to teach
the disputed claim limitations?
4
Appeal2016-002677
Application 13/302,913
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 22-28 as being
obvious over Handysoft in combination with the other applied references
because the proposed combination fails to teach or suggest the disputed
claim limitations?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants' contentions. The Examiner has
provided a comprehensive response, supported by sufficient evidence, to
each of the above-noted contentions raised by Appellants. We adopt as our
own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (see
Ans. 3-38). However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding the argued claims for emphasis as follows.
35 USC§ 102(b) Rejection
Claim 1
With respect to contention l(a), we agree with the Examiner's
findings that Handysoft teaches the disputed claim limitation (see Ans. 3-
20). We particularly agree with the Examiner that the recited content
management system repository is taught by Handysoft's process archive
because Appellants' Specification broadly describes content management
system repository such that it reads on Handysoft's computer storage used
for process archiving (Ans. 4--5; see also Spec. i-f 14). We also agree with
the Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation of "content management
5
Appeal2016-002677
Application 13/302,913
system" as "nothing more than a system that allows for the creation of
business processes," which reads on Handysoft's system that "allows for the
creation, access control, and management of business processes (as well as
instances of those business processes) that is subsequently stored in a storage
medium (i.e. a CMS repository)" (see Ans. 6-7).
Regarding contention 1 (b ), we also agree with the Examiner's
reasoning (Ans. 8-14) that, absent recitation of object-oriented programming
in the claims, Appellants' contention is not commensurate with the scope of
the appealed claims. It is well settled that during examination of a patent
application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404---05
(CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). As further stated by the Examiner (Ans. 8, 12), the limitations,
as argued in Appellants' contention 1 (b ), are not to be read from the
Specification into the claims. In this case, as explained by the Examiner
Handysoft also teaches the claimed business process object
when its employees create and use instances of expense reports,
timeslips, or a request for time off (i.e. also a vacation request).
Again, the instant specification explicitly gives an example of a
business process object of an employee submitting a vacation
request. This very same example is taught in Handysoft in its
employees submitting a request for time off. Thus, in contrast
to the assertions from the appellants, the undefined claimed
business process objects are clearly taught in Handysoft.
(Ans. 10; see also Ans. 13 (citing Spec. i-f 13)).
With respect to Appellants' contention 1 ( c ), we also agree with the
Examiner's findings and explanation (Ans. 14--17). As specifically
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 16), Handysoft on page 22 teaches a
business process as an automated workflow for a business process
6
Appeal2016-002677
Application 13/302,913
containing start-to-finish steps, instances of which may be initiated in order
to perform the business process.
Regarding Appellants' contention l(d), we also agree with the
Examiner that the disclosure on page 22 of Handysoft describes a business
process object in the form of a template from which a number of
occurrences, each called a process instance, may be created (Ans. 18). That
is, different instances of the same "business process object" are created and
accessed separately when different employees initiate an expense report, a
timeslip, or a request for time off using the same automated workflow (see
Ans. 19).
Claim 11
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention 2 because, as
explained by the Examiner, Handysoft allows access to named user or
groups if permission is granted to that user or group (Ans. 21 (citing
Handysoft pp. 21-23)). In other words, Handysoft provides similar
flexibility or restriction that Appellants identify in Paragraph 18 of their
Specification (App. Br. 28; see also Ans. 23-24 (citing Handysoft pp. 102,
220, 261, 271)).
For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding Handysoft teaches the disputed
features of claims 1and11. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1 and 11, as well as claims 4--12, 16, 17, 20, and 21,
which are not argued separately (see App. Br. 25).
7
Appeal2016-002677
Application 13/302,913
Claim 22
35 USC§ 103(a) Rejections
With respect to Appellants' contention 3, the Examiner correctly finds
Handysoft discloses defining types of access and process definition as the
different options available for the user when a business process instance is
being executed (Ans. 28-29 (citing Handysoft pp. 21-23, 59, 65, 102, 220,
and 261)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention of
Examiner error in finding the combination of Handysoft with Gregg teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 22.
Claim 25
Regarding Appellants' contention 4, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' contention because the rejection is based on the combination of
Handysoft with Jost and Grainger. The Examiner finds Handysoft discloses
a workflow, involving a number of defined steps performed by the employee
or the supervisor, which are stored and later accessed for processing and
editing by authorized users (Ans. 31-32 (citing Handysoft pp. 24--25, 261)).
As correctly explained by the Examiner, Jost discloses importing the
business data from a plurality of sources (see Ans. 33) and Grainger
discloses accessing business data by searching the data storage (see Ans. 36
(citing Grainger i-f 70)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
contention of Examiner error in finding the combination of Handysoft with
Jost and Grainger teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 25.
Claim 28
Regarding Appellants' contention 5, the Examiner finds Perlin teaches
access control list (ACL) for granting access to authorized users or denying
access if an unauthorized access is being attempted (Ans. 37 (citing Perlin
8
Appeal2016-002677
Application 13/302,913
i-f 3 7) ). Contrary to Appellants' assertion that "[ d]enying access to an
application is not the same as denying a specific application access to the
first instance of a first business process object ... , while simultaneous [sic]
allowing the same specific application access to the second instance of the
first business process object" (App. Br. 36), the combination of Handysoft
with Gregg, Jost, and Grainger teaches or suggests the concept of denying an
application access via ACL (see Ans. 37-38).
Here, Appellants' contentions focus on the references separately and
ignore the fact that the proposed rejection is based on the combination of
Handysoft with Gregg, Jost, Grainger, and Perlin. Each reference must be
read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the
priorartasawhole. SeeinreKeller, 642F.2d413,425(CCPA1981)
("The test for obviousness is not ... that the claimed invention must be
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art."); see also In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' contention of Examiner error in finding the combination of
Handysoft with Gregg, Jost, Grainger, and Perlin teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation of claim 28.
As discussed herein, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding Handysoft in combination with the other
applied references teaches or suggest the limitations of claims 22, 25, and
28. We therefore sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 22, 25,
and 28, as well as claims 23, 24, 26, and 27 which are not argued separately
(see App. Br. 29-36).
9
Appeal2016-002677
Application 13/302,913
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--12, 16, 17,
and 20-28.
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
10