Ex Parte VAIRAVAN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

13762128 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/762, 128 02/07/2013
23117 7590 12/03/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shanmugam V AIRA VAN
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.
5135-96 4674
EXAMINER
DIVELBISS, MATTHEW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2018 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHANMUGAM V AIRA VAN,
KARTHIK SHANMUGASUNDARAM, and
GARY WOODS
Appeal2017-009047
Application 13/762, 128
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, BETH Z. SHAW, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-27. App. Br. 15. 2 Claim 4 is canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Software AG, a
corporation of the country of Germany. App. Br. 3.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.")
mailed August 4, 2016; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed February 21,
2017; the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed April 17, 2017; and the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 12, 2017.
Appeal2017-009047
Application 13/762, 128
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to incorporating a business-process
model and notation (BPMN) agent in a service-oriented architecture (SOA).
Spec. ,r 1. BPMN is a graphical representation for specifying business
processes in a model. Id. ,r 2. BPMN can be serialized to XML process-
definition language (XPDL) or other formats. Id. SOA implementations
often include web services, business processes and services, among other
entities. Id. ,r 3. The SOA registry plays a role in storing metadata
associated with SOA entities and governing the SOA entities' design-time or
run-time lifecycle. Id.
According to the Specification, it is too complex to manually manage
the governance processes of SOA entities and business processes. Id. ,r 5.
For example, when an organization's size increases or companies merge, the
number and complexity of the organization's processes also tend to increase.
Id. The disclosed embodiments help automate governance processes by
integrating such processes with the SOA registry and a business-process
engine (BPE). Id. ,r 7. This reduces complexities and risks associated with
these elements and the ways that they may change over time. Id.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis on the
limitation at issue:
1. A joint service oriented architecture (SOA) and business
process governance computer system, comprising:
a computer readable storage medium configured to:
store a predefined computer-modeled business
process, and
store metadata for a plurality of SOA entities that
are separate from, but associated with, the predefined
computer-modeled business process;
2
Appeal2017-009047
Application 13/762, 128
a processing system that includes at least one
hardware processor coupled to the computer readable
storage medium, the processing system configured to:
execute business process engine (BPE) computer
instructions that coordinate execution of the predefined
computer-modeled business process;
manage a SOA registry that is configured to run a
governance process to enforce governance on at least the
SOA entities that are associated with the predefined
computer-modeled business process, wherein (1)
execution of the BPE and the predefined computer-
modeled business process is outside and separate from
management of the SOA registry and the governance
process run therein and (2) the SOA registry and the
governance process run therein are outside execution of
the BPE and the predefined computer-modeled business
process;
execute a computer process that is configured to:
(a) receive a document that includes the
predefined computer-modeled business process,
(b) extract, from the document, at least one
process element of the predefined computer-
modeled business process, and
( c) responsive to extraction of the process
element from the document, create at least one
governance object and publish the at least one
governance object to the SOA registry to be
included as at least part of the governance process
that is executed within the SOA registry;
publish, by using an SOA event emitter that is part of the
SOA registry, SOA messages that are based on execution of the
governance process within the SOA registry;
subscribe to and receive, within the BPE, at least one of
the published SOA messages;
publish, by using a process event emitter that is part of the
BPE, process messages that are based on execution of the
predefined computer-modeled business process by the BPE;
subscribe to and receive, within the SOA registry, at least
one of the published process messages;
3
Appeal2017-009047
Application 13/762, 128
automatically execute an action or step that is part of the
governance process being executed within the SOA registry
based on reception of the at least one of the published process
messages; and
execute an analytics application module that is configured
to receive and analyze published SOA messages and published
process messages.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Liu et al.
Novak
Dutta et al.
Kretzschmar et al.
Dom et al.
US 2009/0281996 Al
US 2010/0095266 Al
US 2010/0125618 Al
US 2010/0153167 Al
US 2011/0004446 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Nov. 12, 2009
Apr. 15, 2010
May 20, 2010
June 17, 2010
Jan. 6, 2011
Claims 1-3, 5, 20, 21, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Dutta and Dom. Final Act. 2-28.
Claims 6, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Dutta, Dom, and Liu. Final Act. 28-30.
Claims 7-9 and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Dutta, Dom, Liu, and Novak. Final Act. 30-55.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Dutta, Dom, Liu, and Kretzschmar. Final Act. 55-56.
Claims 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Dutta, Dom, and Novak. Final Act. 56-68.
Claims 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Dutta, Dom, Novak, and Liu. Final Act. 69-71.
4
Appeal2017-009047
Application 13/762, 128
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER DUTTA AND DORN
The Examiner's Findings
In the combination of Dutta and Dom, the Examiner finds that Dutta
teaches (1) using SOA event emitter to publish SOA messages and (2) a
business-process engine (BPE) that subscribes to and receives these
messages, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7 (citing Dutta ,r,r 12, 59). The
Examiner finds Dutta teaches that consumers access SOA-related messages
by submitting a promotion request. Ans. 4 ( citing Dutta ,r 59). According to
the Examiner, the recited subscribing is the same as regularly or
intermittently requesting. Id. The Examiner provides a similar rationale in
rejecting claim 20. See Final Act. 19-20 (citing Dutta ,r 59); Ans. 9-10.
The Examiner finds that Dom teaches executing a BPE outside and
separate from the SOA-registry management and executing an analytics
application. Final Act. 9-11. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to combine Dutta and Dom for efficient analysis and aggregation.
Id. at 11.
Appellants' Contentions
Appellants argue that the recited publishing and subscribing does not
encompass Dutta's email exchange. App. Br. 17. Appellants argue that
Dutta's messages are not received within a BPE, as recited. Id. Appellants
argue that Dutta does not publish messages from its SOA repository to an
external source, let alone a separately executing BPE. Id. at 16; see also
App. Br. 28 (discussing claim 20's rejection).
Issue
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1
and 20 by finding that Dutta and Dom would have taught or suggested (1)
5
Appeal2017-009047
Application 13/762, 128
using the SOA event emitter to publish SOA messages and (2) a business-
process engine (BPE) that subscribes to and receives these messages?
Analysis
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a computer process configured to
"publish, by using an SOA event emitter that is part of the SOA registry,
SOA messages that are based on execution of the governance process within
the SOA registry." Claim 1 further recites a computer process configured to
"subscribe to and receive, within the BPE, at least one of the published SOA
messages." According to claim 1, the processing system executes the BPE
computer instructions, but the SOA registry and the governance process "are
outside execution of the BPE." That is, the recited BPE is a computer-
executed process that receives SOA messages. 3
For example, the Specification explains that a BPE coordinates
execution of, and governs, a predefined computer-modeled business process.
Spec. ,r 10. The business processes may have several associated SOA
entities. Id. An SOA registry may govern the SOA entities and store their
associated metadata. Id.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that Dutta
teaches or suggests the recited BPE. App. Br. 16-17, 28. In particular, we
agree that the Examiner has not shown Dutta's email exchange involves a
3 Claim 20 recites similar limitations. Specifically, claim 20 recites a
computer process configured to "publish, by using an event-driven
architecture (EDA) based SOA event emitter, SOA messages that are based
on how the SOA registry has run the governance process within the SOA
registry" and "receive, via a process event subscriber, at least one process
message that has been published by a process event emitter that is part of the
BPE."
6
Appeal2017-009047
Application 13/762, 128
BPE that subscribes and receives messages published using a registry's SOA
event emitter, as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner's rejection is based on paragraph 59 of Dutta.
Final Act. 7. Dutta's paragraph 59 is part of a discussion on software
lifecycle. See Dutta ,r,r 55---60. Dutta's Figure 4, reproduced below,
illustrates the relied-upon embodiment. Id. ,r 55.
Dutta's Figure 4 is a block flow diagram showing a service component
moving through the life-cycle stages. Id. 1 26.
When an enterprise architect wants to promote a software component from
design stage 116 to development stage 120, the architect submits a
promotion request to the process manager. Id. ,r 58. The manager
determines whether the stage's promotion criterion has been met. Id. In this
example, the criterion is whether the test requirements were specified (Fig.
4, 118). Id. If the criterion was unmet, the component remains in state 116
("DESIGN"). Id. If the criterion was met, the component is promoted to
7
Appeal2017-009047
Application 13/762, 128
stage 120 ("DEVELOPMENT"). Id. Similarly, the architect can submit a
promotion request after developing the component to promote it to stage 124
("TESTING"). Id. ,r 59. Of relevance to the limitation at issue, the architect
can submit the promotion request via "e-mail or other form of message" to
the process manager. Id.
We agree with Appellants that "[s]ending an e-mail ... between these
two different people does not teach or suggest publishing the claimed SOA
messages from the SOA registry and then receiving those SOA messages ( or
at least one thereof) at a separately executing BPE." App. Br. 17. Put
simply, the Examiner has not shown how Dutta uses a BPE and SOA
registry in the manner claimed. Rather, Dutta' s embodiment uses an email
program to exchange information about the business process. Dutta ,r 59.
To be sure, Dutta teaches an "SOA repository." See, e.g., id. ,r 59.
For example, the architect can submit a promotion request by marking a
database entry associated with the software component in the SOA
repository. Id. This is an alternative to email. Id.
Yet we agree with Appellants that Dutta, at most, describes different
people interacting with the SOA repository to update its fields. App. Br. 16.
Even assuming, without deciding, Dutta's repository is the recited registry,
the Examiner has not identified messages based on the governance process
executed within the SOA registry. Id. Nor has the Examiner shown that
Dutta teaches an SOA event emitter that publishes the SOA messages. Id.
Instead, Dutta's example teaches using database entries to indicate when the
artifacts in the SOA repository are ready for testing. Dutta ,r 59.
The Examiner explains that it would have been obvious to separate
the SOA registry and BPE into different environments because doing so
8
Appeal2017-009047
Application 13/762, 128
would not produce any unexpected results. Ans. 5---6. For the teaching of
separate environments, the Examiner cites Dom. Id.; Final Act. 9-11. Yet
the Examiner has not shown how Dom or Dutta teaches or suggests an SOA
registry that performs the recited functions executing inside or outside a
BPE, as discussed above. See id. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner's reliance on Dom for separating the SOA registry and BPE
cannot cure Dutta's deficiencies. See Reply Br. 3--4.
On this record, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner-cited
paragraphs of Dutta lack the publish-subscribe-receive feature recited in
claims 1 and 20.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 20
and, for similar reasons, associated dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 21, 26, and 27.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER DUTTA, DORN, AND
NOVAK
Independent claim 13 recites, in part, a system configured to "publish,
by using a process event emitter that is part of the BP E, process messages
that are based on how the business process is run within the BPE" ( emphasis
added). Claim 13 further recites, in part, "subscribe to and receive, within
the SOA registry, at least one of the published process messages" (emphasis
added). So, unlike claims 1 and 20, independent claim 13 recites that the
emitter that is used to publish messages is part of the BPE, not the SOA
registry, and the SOA registry subscribes to and receives the process
messages.
As to the publish-subscribe-receive limitations recited in claim 13, the
Examiner relies on the same rationale used in the rejection of claims 1 and
20. See Final Act. 61 (rejecting claim 13), 39 (rejecting claim 22). Like the
9
Appeal2017-009047
Application 13/762, 128
rejection of claims 1 and 20, claim 13's rejection relies on Dutta's email
exchange in paragraph 59 to teach the publish-subscribe-receive limitations
in claims 13 and 22. Id. For the teaching of separate environments, the
Examiner relies upon Dom. Final Act. 62-63. The Examiner then
introduces Novak for the policy, lifecycle management, or approval
management-type governance-process element. Id. at 64.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the publish-
subscribe-receive limitations are taught by Dutta for the reasons similar to
those discussed in connection with claims 1 and 20. App. Br. 45--46. Also,
Appellants argue that the references do not link ( 1) triggering a governance-
process action to (2) receiving a published process message that is based on
the process's execution by the separately executing BPE. Id. at 46.
For the reasons discussed above in connection with claims 1 and 20,
we agree with Appellants that Dutta lacks these publish-subscribe-receive
limitations in claim 13. Because the Examiner cites Novak for a governance
process, Novak cannot supply the features missing from Dutta.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
13 and dependent claims 14--16, for similar reasons.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS
DEPENDING FROM CLAIMS 1 AND 13
The Examiner rejects claims 6-12 and 17-19 as being obvious over
various combinations of Dutta, Dom, Liu, Novak, and Kretzschmar.
Final Act. 28-30, 55-68, and 69-71. Because the additional references are
not relied upon to teach the limitation missing from Dutta, the additional
references do not cure the deficiency discussed above. See id. Thus, we do
10
Appeal2017-009047
Application 13/762, 128
not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 6-12 and 17-19 for the same
reasons discussed above in connection with claims 1 and 13.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 22-25 OVER DUTTA,
DORN, LIU, AND NOV AK
Independent claims 22 and 24 recite similar limitations to the publish-
subscribe-receive limitations in claim 13, which are variations on the
features recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies on the same teachings to
address these limitations. See Final Act. 39 (rejecting claim 22), 50
(rejecting claim 24); see also Ans. 16 ("[The] Examiner ... reasserts the
arguments in regard to claim 1 .... "). The Examiner adds Liu to the
combination to teach the limitations related to the BPMN. Final Act. 42,
52-53.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the publish-
subscribe-receive limitations are taught by Dutta for reasons similar to those
discussed in connection with claims 1 and 20. App. Br. 41--42.
Additionally, Appellants argue that the references do not link (1) triggering a
governance-process step to (2) receiving published process message that is
based on the process's execution by the separately executing BPE. Id. at 42.
For the reasons discussed above in connection with claims 1 and 20,
we agree with Appellants' argument that Dutta lacks these publish-
subscribe-receive limitations in claim 13. Because the Examiner cites Liu
and Novak for other features, these references cannot supply the features
missing from Dutta.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 22 and 24
and dependent claims 23 and 25.
11
Appeal2017-009047
Application 13/762, 128
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-27.
REVERSED
12