Jiri Pechanec et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 12, 2020

2020001286 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/407,872 02/29/2012 Jiri Pechanec 05220.1498 (L1436) 9337
14400 7590 11/12/2020
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Red Hat
Patent Docket Administrator
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/12/2020 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):
patents@lowenstein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIRI PECHANEC and MARTIN VECERA
Appeal 2020-001286
Application 13/407,872
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 10–13, 15–18, 21, 23, 25, and 27–
29. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the assignee of the
full interest of the application, Red Hat Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001286
Application 13/407,872

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a providing dependency injection in a
business process model system. Appeal Br. 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor hosting a business process
model (BPM) system, a process, a variable existing at a time at
which the process is executed and a plurality of parameters of
the process;
retrieving, from a content repository, a first sub-process
among a plurality of sub-processes associated with the process
in view of the plurality of parameters of the process;
generating, by the processor, a first metadata for the
retrieved first sub-process in view of the plurality of
parameters;
comparing, by the processor, the first metadata with the
variable of the process to determine whether a match exists
between the first metadata and the variable of the process;
in response to determining that the match does not exist
between the first metadata and the variable of the process,
retrieving a second sub-process among the plurality of sub-
processes associated with the process in view of the plurality of
parameters of the process, wherein a second metadata is applied
to the second sub-process in view of the plurality of parameters;
comparing, by the processor, the second metadata with
the variable of the process to determine whether a match exists
between the second metadata and the variable of the process;
and
in response to determining that the match exists between
the second metadata and the variable of the process, inserting
first source code of the second sub-process into second source
code of the process.

Appeal 2020-001286
Application 13/407,872

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Yeung US 2005/0165822 A1 July 28, 2005
Liu US 2009/0281996 A1 Nov. 12, 2009
Reed US 2010/0122232 A1 May 13, 2010
Lu US 2011/0066456 A1 Mar. 17, 2011
Wargin US 2011/0178825 A1 July 21, 2011
Delany US 2011/0184782 A1 July 28, 2011

REJECTIONS
In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1–5,
10–13, 15–18, 21, 23, 25, and 27–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3.
Accordingly, we do not address this rejection.
Claims 1–3, 5, 10–11, 13, 15–18, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Reed, Wargin, Yeung, and Lu. Final
Act 15.
Claims 4, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Reed, Wargin, Yeung, Lu, and Delany. Final Act 31.
Claims 27–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Reed, Wargin, Yeung, Lu, and Liu. Final Act 34.
OPINION
Claim 1
Appellant argues the combination of Reed, Wargin, Yeung, and Lu
fails to teach or suggest “in response to determining that the match exists
between the second metadata and the variable of the process, inserting first
Appeal 2020-001286
Application 13/407,872

4
source code of the second sub-process into second source code of the
process,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9.
In particular, Appellant argues
Lu is at most concerned with “looping through operations
810 and 812 multiple times to evaluate various decision gates in
the process” and “shipping process model that includes multiple
potential branches of execution.” Lu is silent as to any insertion
of source code in a process in any manner.
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that Lu “provides no mention” of the term
“source code” or insertion of source code from one process into another
process. Id. Appellant argues:
Moreover, nowhere in Lu is it described that any source code is
inserted into, added together, or otherwise combined as part of the
process model configuration in Lu. Instead, Lu describes a process
model that includes multiple potential branches of execution. Lu does
not teach or suggest inserting one of the branches of execution into a
process, rather the branch of execution is already part of the process.
Pertinently, the as-filed specification of the present application
differentiates itself from the branching execution model of Lu when
stating that the method as set forth in claim I “simplifies
the creation of the parent process by the BPM system as branching
logic for multiple different sub-processes does not have to be hard-
coded into the parent process.” (Specification, para. [0044], emphasis
added.) In Lu, it is clear that that branching logic is part of the main
process. Accordingly, Lu neither teaches nor suggest “inserting first
source code of the second subprocess into second source code of the
process,” much less making such insertion “in response to
determining that the match exists between the second metadata and
the variable of the process,” as cited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner, however, finds, and we agree, that Wargin teaches the
claimed injecting a sub-process into the process. Final Act. 18–20 (citing
Wargin ¶¶ 59, 60, 64, 81, 91) see also Wargin, Fig. 5, element 436. For
Appeal 2020-001286
Application 13/407,872

5
example, Wargin explains that its action plan database may include
individual procedures or groups of procedures and in response to an analysis
of a task, the task analysis component may build an action plan from the
procedures or groups of procedures. Wargin ¶ 64. Wargin’s action plan may
be built based on the task, data requests included in the task, the type of task,
pattern matching results, insurance claim data or one or more other
parameters associated with the task and or the procedures. Id. For example,
the parameter(s) in a task may identify one or more specific procedures or
groups of procedures, or match procedures to tasks. Id. Appellant does not
dispute these findings in the briefs.
Moreover, Yeung teaches “the business process analysis and
optimization module 70 automatically revises the current business process
model 200 based on the comparison by adopting a work step or a task from
another business process model 512.” Yeung ¶ 60; see Final Act. 20, 21
(citing Yeung ¶¶ 10–11, discussing “optimizing a business processes
involving performance of a task”); Ans. 9.
Appellant also argues that the combination of Reed, Wargin, Yeung,
and Lu fails to teach or suggest “comparing, by the processor, the first
metadata with the variable of the process to determine whether a match
exists between the first metadata and the variable of the process,” as recited
in claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues:
Yeung is at most concerned with comparing different business
models associated with different business processes (e.g., first
business process and a second business process) against one
another. Yeung is silent as to comparison of metadata generated
for a sub-process of a process against variables of the same
process existing at runtime of the process. The metadata and the
variables being compared in the above-recited limitation of
Appeal 2020-001286
Application 13/407,872

6
claim 1 are associated with the same process. In comparison,
the data compared in Yeung is associated with entirely different
business processes.
Appeal Br. 14, 15; see also Reply Br. 8, 9.
We are not persuaded by this argument because we agree with the
Examiner that Yeung’s descriptive data teaches the claimed “metadata.”
Ans. 9 (citing Yeung ¶¶ 10, 11). Yeung compares the first data (i.e.,
metadata) with the variable of the process to determine whether a match
exists between the first metadata and the variable of the process. Id.
Moreover, although Appellant argues that Yeung does not compare variables
“at runtime of the process,” (Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 8), this language is
not recited in the claim. Thus, this argument is not commensurate in scope
with claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. Because
Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or have
reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5,
10–13, 15–18, 21, 23, 25, and 27–29.

Dependent Claim 4
With respect to dependent claim 4, which depends from claim 1,
Appellant argues the combination of Reed, Wargin, Yeung, Lu, and Delany
fails to teach or suggest “updating the generated metadata for the retrieved
first and second sub-processes in view of the additional parameters,” as
recited in dependent claim 4. Appeal Br. 16. In particular, Appellant argues,
“Delan[]y is silent as to updating any generated metadata for a retrieved first
and second sub-processes of a process in view of additional parameters.” Id.
Appeal 2020-001286
Application 13/407,872

7
at 18; Reply Br. 11. Appellant argues, “[t]he design data of Delan[]y is not
described as generated metadata of a first and second sub-processes.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner, however, that Delany’s updating of
design data (i.e., metadata) for multiple tasks based on new information
about the design process teaches the disputed limitation of claim 4. Ans. 11,
12 (citing Delany ¶¶ 4, 28). In particular, Delany describes that design data
“can include any process data (i.e., any data associated with a process-at
issue).” Delany ¶ 28. Moreover, Delany describes that “design data is
continuously updated as new information about the designed process
becomes available.” Id. Appellants provide insufficient evidence that the
Specification or claims limit “metadata” in a way that, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Delany’s teaching of
design data. Thus, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Delany
does not teach the claimed metadata or the “updating the generated metadata
for the retrieved first and second sub-processes in view of the additional
parameters,” as recited in dependent claim 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4, and
claims 12 and 17, which were argued together with claim 4.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
More specifically, we affirm the § 103 rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 10–
13, 15–18, 21, 23, and 25 as unpatentable over Reed, Wargin, Yeung, and
Lu. We affirm the § 103 rejection of claims 4, 12, and 17 as unpatentable
over Reed, Wargin, Yeung, Lu, and Delany. We affirm the § 103 rejection
of claims 27–29 as unpatentable over Reed, Wargin, Yeung, Lu, and Liu.
Appeal 2020-001286
Application 13/407,872

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 10–
13, 15–18,
21, 23, 25
103 Reed, Wargin,
Yeung, Lu
1–5, 10–13,
15–18, 21,
23, 25

4, 12, 17 103 Reed, Wargin,
Yeung, Lu, Delany
4, 12, 17
27–29 103 Reed, Wargin,
Yeung, Lu, Liu
27–29
Overall
Outcome:
` 1–5, 10–13,
15–18, 21,
23, 25, 27–
29

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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