Ex Parte Winkler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2018

13423997 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/423,997 03/19/2012
56056 7590 06/12/2018
BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP
C/O CPA Global
900 Second A venue South
Suite 600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ulrich Winkler
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.
0010-140001/2012P00099US 1042
EXAMINER
KARMIS, ALISSA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2018 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):
uspto@brakehughes.com
docketing@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULRICH WINKLER and W ASIF GILANI
Appeal2016-004307
Application 13/423,997 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, MATTHEWS. MEYERS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify SAP SE as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2016-004307
Application 13/423,997
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A data processing apparatus for conducting a business
impact analysis for a service oriented architecture (SOA) that
includes a plurality of processes and services, the data
processing apparatus comprising:
at least one processor;
non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
including instructions executable by the at least one processor,
the instructions configured to implement,
a process table generator configured to generate a first
impact table for a first process and a second impact table for a
second process;
a service table generator configured to generate a service
impact table for a top-level service by merging the first impact
table and the second impact table, the top-level service
including the first process and the second process, each of the
first impact table, the second impact table and the service
impact table having at least one time interval and at least one
impact category;
a dependency model generator configured to generate a
dependency model arranging the plurality of services with
dependency links, at least one service of the dependency model
being annotated with risk information associated with the at
least one service;
an analysis model generator configured to receive a
selected service level agreement and convert the service impact
table, the dependency model and the selected service level
agreement into a Behavior Analysis Model (BEAM) using
defined transformation patterns, the selected service level
agreement including at least time constraint information, the
BEAM including simulation patterns corresponding to the
selected service level agreement, the service impact table, and
the dependency model;
a simulator configured to simulate the BEAM over a
period of time including determining one or more violations for
2
Appeal2016-004307
Application 13/423,997
the at least one service for the selected service level agreement;
and
a service level agreement classifier configured to classify
the selected service level agreement based on the one or more
violations.
REJECTION
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as ineligible subject
matter. 2
ANALYSIS
Applying the first step of the methodology delineated in Alice Corp.
Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014), the
rejection states that claims 1-21 are directed to the abstract idea of
"analyzing business impacts for processes and services," which is
characterized as a fundamental economic practice. Final Action 2. See also
Answer 5; Advisory Action (June 1, 2015), Continuation Sheet (referring to
the "the concept of conducting a business impact analysis for a service
oriented architecture (SOA)," which "would be directed towards a
fundamental practice in business management.") In addition, the Examiner
also regards certain claim limitations as being directed to the abstract idea of
"mathematical algorithms and relationships." Answer 5. Further, the
Examiner also regards the claims as directed to "running a simulation to
evaluate hypothetical situations and identify outcomes," which is
characterized as being similar to the abstract idea of "comparing new and
stored information and using rules to identify options" discussed in
2 In addition, the Examiner rejects claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Final Action 3-15. The corresponding rejections are withdrawn. Answer 2.
3
Appeal2016-004307
Application 13/423,997
SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, 555 F. App'x 950
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential). Answer 6.
As to the second step of the Alice framework, the Examiner
determines that the claimed elements do not amount to significantly more
than the abstract idea, because the claims recite computer elements that
"perform their basic functions of storing, retrieving, and implementing a
software program that manages analyzing the business impacts." Final
Action 2-3. See also Answer 5---6; Advisory Action (June 1, 2015),
Continuation Sheet.
Asserting error in the rejection, the Appellants argue that the claims
are not directed to an abstract idea (see Appeal Br. 11-17) and that, in any
event, the claims contain additional elements that amount to significantly
more than any such abstract idea (see Appeal Br. 17-19; see also Reply
Br. 2-11).
The following discussion focuses on the Appellants' arguments
regarding the second Alice step, which persuades us of error in the rejection.
In particular, the Appellants argue that the claims
specify in very specific technical terms how a system for
business impact analysis for an SOA [Service Oriented
Architecture] having a plurality of processes and services,
where impact tables, risk information, dependency graphs, and
service level agreements are converted into a BEAM using
defined transformation patterns, and then this BEAM is
simulated to determine whether a service level agreement
would be sufficient to service the one or more services.
Appeal Br. 18-19. See also Reply Br. 2--4 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 141, 144, 145,
Fig. 16). Independent claim 1, for example, recites, in relevant part:
an analysis model generator configured to receive a
selected service level agreement and convert the service impact
4
Appeal2016-004307
Application 13/423,997
table, the dependency model and the selected service level
agreement into a Behavior Analysis Model (BEAM) using
defined transformation patterns, the selected service level
agreement including at least time constraint information, the
BEAM including simulation patterns corresponding to the
selected service level agreement, the service impact table, and
the dependency model; [and]
a simulator configured to simulate the BEAM over a
period of time including determining one or more violations for
the at least one service for the selected service level agreement.
According to the Appellants, these elements are non-conventional, such that
they would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea,
under the second step of the Alice analytical framework:
Converting the service impact table, the dependency model, and
the selected service level agreement into the BEAM is not a
conventional or basic function of a computer system, but rather
involves elements that relate to a technical solution in order to
allow the simulator to perform an impact analysis for a service-
oriented architecture (SOA). These limitations provide
meaningful limitations beyond generally implementing the
alleged abstract idea(s) via a computer.
Reply Br. 3. The Appellants further contend:
If one would analyze claim l's limitations element-by-element,
and then strip away any conventional elements, the resulting
features would include at least the above-identified limitations
of claim 1, which are not conventional features or some kind of
generalized abstract idea. For instance, these limitations are
technical features other than what is well-understood, routine
and conventional in the field of SOA systems.
Id. In addition, the Appellants argue that
in order to produce the technical solution as provided by the
BEAM patterns as shown in FIG. 16 [of the Specification],
the analysis model generator must be configured in a way to
transform the service impact table, the dependency model, and
5
Appeal2016-004307
Application 13/423,997
the selected service level agreement into a simulation model,
which requires technical skill [sic] to a technical problem.
Id.
The Examiner's Answer states that the limitation of "convert[ing] the
service impact table, the dependency model and the selected service level
agreement into a Behavior Analysis Model (BEAM)" is "similar to taking
data sets and combining them together." Answer 6. The Examiner appears
to compare the limitation of "convert[ing] the service impact table, the
dependency model and the selected service level agreement into a Behavior
Analysis Model (BEAM)," of independent claims 1, to a concept that was
held to be a patent-ineligible abstract idea in the Digitech case discussed in
the same paragraph on page 7 of the Answer. See Digitech Image Techs.,
LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("The
above claim ... recites an ineligible abstract process of gathering and
combining data that does not require input from a physical device.")
However, the Examiner's analysis of the limitation of "converting the
service impact table, the dependency model and the selected service level
agreement into a Behavior Analysis Model (BEAM)" does not address
whether the limitation contains elements that amount to non-conventional
elements that are significantly more than an abstract idea identified in the
first step of the Examiner's Alice analysis. Regardless of whether case law
may illuminate whether subject matter is conventional or generic, the
language from the Digitech case that is referenced in the Examiner's Answer
(page 7) does not address that issue; instead, the referenced portion of
Digitech relates to whether particular subject matter constitutes an abstract
idea.
6
Appeal2016-004307
Application 13/423,997
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are persuaded by the
Appellants' argument that the rejection does not sufficiently show that claim
1 fails to recite elements that amount to more than an abstract idea. The
foregoing analysis also applies to the Examiner's analysis of independent
claims 11 and 18, which contain limitations similar to what is discussed
above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims
1, 11, and 18 and dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-21, under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21, under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
REVERSED
7