Ex Parte Young et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2014

10189837 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ALAN YOUNG, RICHARD KAO, and RAFAEL INNIS
____________________

Appeal 2012-005714
Application 10/189,8371
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAYAT, 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 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.2

1 The real party in interest, as identified by Appellants, is Computer
Associates Think, Incorporated (App. Br. 3).
2 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Oct. 11, 2011), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 22, 2011), and
Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 22, 2012).
Appeal 2012-005714
Application 10/189,837

2

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention generally relates to systems and methods for
managing and improving business processes and business performance
(Spec. 2:11–12). Claim 13 reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for propagating a business event,
comprising:

defining, at a contextual visualization unit running on a
first computer and maintained by a first business entity, an
event associated with at least two of a reactive process policy, a
predictive process policy, and a proactive process policy;

registering, at an event manager running on the first
computer and maintained by the first business entity, a first
source for data relevant to the event, the first source being at
least one source of a plurality of sources eligible for
registration, at least one of the plurality of sources comprising
an unintegrated source maintained by a second business entity
different than the first business entity, wherein the data of the
first source of data is created by the second business entity prior
to being available to the first business entity;

registering, at the event manager, a component interested
in the event;

defining, at the event manager, a data channel to be used
for a notification of an identification of the event;

identifying, at the event manager, the event based on:

3 Claim 1 contained in the Claims Appendix (App. Br. 25) does not reflect
the last amended version of the claim, including the additional limitation
“the first source being an unintegrated source.” See Supplemental Response
to Office Action (filed Dec. 9, 2010) and Amendment (entered on Dec. 14,
2010).
Appeal 2012-005714
Application 10/189,837

3

processing at least a portion of the data from the first
source using a first policy of the at least two policies associated
with the event, the first source being an unintegrated source;
and

processing at least a portion of data maintained by the
first business entity using a second policy of the at least two
policies associated with the event and the processing of at least
a portion of the data from the first source using the first policy,
the portion of data maintained by the first business entity
different than the portion of data from the first source;

generating, at a business process manager running on the
first computer and maintained by the first business entity, a first
notification of the identification of the event using the at least
two of the reactive process policy, the predictive process policy,
and the proactive process policy associated with the event; and

transmitting, at the business process manager, the first
notification of the identification of the event to the interested
component via the data channel.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being
unpatentable over Johnson (US 6,067,525, iss. May 23, 2000), in view of
Sumita (US 5,907,836, iss. May 25, 1999), and Godlew (US 5,377,196, iss.
Dec. 27, 1994). Ans. 7–17.
Appeal 2012-005714
Application 10/189,837

4

Claims 7, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being
unpatentable over Johnson in view of Sumita, Godlew, and Vinberg
(US 6,327,550 B1, iss. Dec. 4, 2001).4 Id. at 21–22.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined the findings of fact in the Analysis section below
are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.5
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 9, and 15
Appellants request review of the rejections of independent claims 1, 9,
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as a group, arguing that the claims are not
obvious in light of the proposed combination of Johnson, Sumita, and
Godlew (App. Br. 16–21, Reply Br. 2–10). We select claim 1 as being
representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner maintains that the rejection of record is proper (Ans.
22–26).
After carefully considering Appellants’ arguments against the
combination, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationale set
forth in the Answer on pages 6–19 and 22–24. The contested claim

4 Appellants do not contest the rejection of claims 7, 13, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Johnson, Sumita, Godlew, and Vinberg.
Thus, we summarily sustain these uncontested rejections.
5 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2012-005714
Application 10/189,837

5

limitation “at least one of the plurality of sources comprising an unintegrated
source maintained by a second business entity different than the first
business entity” is properly interpreted by the Examiner as corresponding to
Johnson, wherein “‘[r]emote sites includes trade shows, kiosks, Internet
Web Sites, or electronic advertising. . . also includes the ability to process
and/or receive lead data from other enterprise systems. . . ’” (id. at 24
(citing Johnson 11:5–15)) because Appellants’ Specification provides that
“[t]ypical data sources 140 may include, a business application, Internet data
sources, and commercial or proprietary information sources providing
weather and traffic data, for example” (Spec. 7:13–15, see also Ans. 12–13,
23–24). We agree with the Examiner that “the ability to integrate various
and different systems, tools, different sites, different and separate
formats/platforms, other enterprises, trade shows, kiosks, different softwares
[sic], etc.[,] in order to meet the goal of completing a sale, reads over [sic,
on] the feature ‘unintegrated source’” (id. at 24), because it, in fact,
facilitates transfer of information from disparate sources. Thus, Appellants’
contentions that Johnson teaches away from the proposed modification, that
the modification with Sumita would lead to unpredictable results, and
require a change in the principle of operation (App. Br. 16–20, Reply Br. 2–
6) are unpersuasive, because we are not persuaded that such familiar
elements would not have been combinable by an artisan possessing ordinary
skill using known methods in a manner that would have yielded predictable
results as set forth in the rejection of record.
Appellants’ arguments with regards to Godlew (App. Br. 20) fail to
address the Examiner’s actual rejection to establish an insufficiency in the
combined teachings of the references, because for example, the Examiner
Appeal 2012-005714
Application 10/189,837

6

relies on Johnson for “processing of the data” (Ans. 10) and Godlew for
using “reactive and proactive policies/diagnosis” (id. at 17–18).
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
sustained for the reasons set forth above, and the remaining claims fall with
claim 1.
Claims 2–5, 10, 11, and 16
With respect to dependent claims 2–5, 10, 11, and 16, Appellants
contend that “the Examiner simply states that the recited elements are
inherently disclosed in Johnson but provides no basis to support the
determination. . . ” (App. Br. 21–22, Reply Br. 10–12). We reject
Appellants’ contention. For instance, claim 3 is rejected as obvious over the
combination of Johnson, Sumita, and Godlew, wherein the Examiner further
cites to column 32, lines 8–36 of Johnson for teaching a “[m]essaging
function” that enables the business objects to communicate state and status
information with each other (Ans. 27). Thus, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings and rationale as our own as set forth on pages 19–20
and 26–27 of the Answer with regard to claims 2–5, 10, 11, and 16.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 2–5, 10, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is sustained for the foregoing reasons.
Appeal 2012-005714
Application 10/189,837

7

Claims 6, 8, 12, 14, 18, and 20
Appellants also allege that the Examiner “fails to address each
element of Claims 6, 8, 12, 14, 18 and 20” (App. Br. 22–23, Reply Br. 12–
13). We disagree with Appellants’ allegations and find that the Examiner
adequately addressed the limitations in the claims and articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. For example, the Examiner rejected claims 6, 12 and 18 based
on the combination of Johnson, Sumita, and Godlew, particularly citing to
the expert system of Godlew for diagnosing a data communication network
comprising a plurality of rules wherein the reactive rules are performed by
the system in response to requests from users and the proactive rules are
automatically performed (Ans. 16–18 and 28, citing Godlew 3:10–20,
22:60–69, 23:1–35). Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning as our own with respect to these claims as well, as detailed in the
Answer. Thus, the rejection of claims 6, 8, 12, 14, 18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
Insofar as Appellants have relied upon arguments presented above
with respect to claims 7, 13, 17, and 19, we sustain the rejection of those
claims as well under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth above.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
sustained.
Appeal 2012-005714
Application 10/189,837

8

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s secondary rejection of claims 7, 13, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh