Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2021

2019005642 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021)

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.
14/538,393 11/11/2014 Walter Chang 058083-0918938
(P5000-US)
7246
72058 7590 03/18/2021
Adobe / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
DEWAN, KAMAL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2021 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WALTER CHANG and NICHOLAS DIGIUSEPPE
____________

Appeal 2019-005642
Application 14/538,393
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5–11, and 14–24, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest
as Adobe Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005642
Application 14/538,393

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention “relates generally to
techniques for collecting, organizing, and searching for data in a dataset.”
Spec. ¶ 1.2 The Specification notes that a “triple” generally includes
“a subject, a predicate, and an object.” Id. ¶ 24. The Specification explains
that “[e]ach of the subject and the object represents a respective natural
language phrase (e.g., one or more words)” and that “[t]he predicate
represents an association between the subject and the object.” Id.
According to the Specification, an exemplary embodiment identifies
“different triple extraction techniques corresponding to source files of
different types” since a “source file can be one or more of a structured,
semi-structured, or unstructured file.” Id. ¶ 6.
The Specification explains that an “element” represents “a component
of a sentence, such as a word or a combination of multiple words.” Spec.
¶ 35; see id. ¶ 37. The Specification also explains that an “entity” represents
“a component of an element of a triple.” Id. ¶ 37. For example, each
word in a triple’s subject or object may constitute an “entity.” Id.
The Specification describes an “entity dictionary” as “a structure
configured to express or store associations or relationships between a
plurality of entities and phrases in which these entities may be found.”
Spec. ¶ 37; see id. ¶¶ 59, 77. Hence, an “entity dictionary lists the different

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed November 11, 2014; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed August 15, 2018; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
January 15, 2019; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 16, 2019;
and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed July 15, 2019.
Appeal 2019-005642
Application 14/538,393

3
entities in associations with the phrases in which these entities participate.”
Id. ¶ 38; see id. ¶¶ 59, 77.
In addition, the Specification explains that a “phrase” corresponds to
a “mention.” Spec. ¶ 37; see id. ¶¶ 40, 58–59. The Specification describes
a “mention dictionary” as “a structure configured to express or store
association[s] or relationships between a plurality of phrases (or mentions)”
and the triples that include the “entities or words found in the phrases.” Id.
¶ 40; see id. ¶¶ 59, 78. Hence, a “mention dictionary lists the different
phrases used in the subjects and objects of the triples and identifies, for
each phrase, the associated triple.” Id. ¶ 40; see id. ¶¶ 59, 78.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads
as follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A computer-implemented method for creating a dataset
to facilitate natural language searching of data from a plurality
of different source files, the computer-implemented method
comprising:
identifying, by a processor, different triple extraction
techniques corresponding to source files of different types, each
triple extraction technique specific to a type of a source file and
associated with a set of rules specific to the type of the source
file;
extracting, by the processor, triples from each source file
by performing operations comprising:
detecting the type of the source file,
applying, to the source file, the set of rules of
the triple extraction technique specific to the type of
the source file, and
identifying, for each triple from the source file and
based on the application of the set of rules, a natural
language phrase as a subject, another natural language
Appeal 2019-005642
Application 14/538,393

4
phrase as an object, and an association between the
natural language phrase and the other natural language
phrase as a predicate,
wherein the triple comprises elements including
the subject, the object, and the association and has a
format common to the different types of the source files;
generating, by the processor, an entity dictionary based
on the triples,
wherein the entity dictionary stores a first
association indicating that an element included in a first
natural language phrase from a first triple is also included
in a second natural language phrase from a second triple,
wherein the second natural language phrase is
different from the first natural language phrase;
generating, by the processor, a mention dictionary based
on the triples,
wherein the mention dictionary stores a second
single association indicating that the first natural language
phrase and the second natural language phrase are objects
in the first triple and the second triple, respectively,
wherein the mention dictionary is stored separately
from the entity dictionary;
storing, by the processor, the triples, the entity dictionary,
and the mention dictionary in the dataset; and
generating, by the processor in response to a user query,
a query result based on the triples, the entity dictionary, and the
mention dictionary.
Appeal Br. 22–23 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-005642
Application 14/538,393

5
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Gardner et al. (“Gardner”) US 2006/0053172 A1 Mar. 9, 2006
Zhu et al. (“Zhu”) US 2008/0301094 A1 Dec. 4, 2008
Jung et al. (“Jung”) US 2011/0320491 A1 Dec. 29, 2011
Ateya et al. (“Ateya”) US 2015/0378984 A1 Dec. 31, 2015 (filed June 30, 2014)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 11, 17, and 21–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Zhu, Gardner, and Jung. Final Act. 4–26.
Claims 5–10, 14–16, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Zhu, Gardner, Jung, and Ateya. Final Act. 26–53.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the § 103 rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before us and for
the reasons explained below, we agree with Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of the references teach or
suggest the claimed subject matter. We add the following to address and
emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 11, 17, and 21–24
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 11, AND 17
As noted above, the § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 11,
and 17 rests on Zhu, Gardner, and Jung. See Final Act. 4–23. Appellant
argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 11, and 17 because the
Appeal 2019-005642
Application 14/538,393

6
references fail to teach or suggest the following limitation in claim 1
concerning an “entity dictionary” and similar limitations in claims 11
and 17:
generating, by the processor, an entity dictionary based on the
triples, wherein the entity dictionary stores a first association
indicating that an element included in a first natural language
phrase from a first triple is also included in a second natural
language phrase from a second triple, wherein the second
natural language phrase is different from the first natural
language phrase.
See Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 6–8. The Examiner cites Jung as teaching or
suggesting the disputed limitations in claims 1, 11, and 17. See Final Act. 8,
16, 21 (citing Jung ¶¶ 42, 47); Ans. 5–8 (citing Jung ¶¶ 47–48, 50, 53–54).
Appellant contends that Jung’s “named entity dictionary” does not
store the same association as the claimed “entity dictionary.” Appeal Br. 6.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that Jung’s “named entity dictionary” stores
“an association between a more generic concept, such as ‘thing’ or
‘company,’ and a specific instance of the concept, such as ‘computer’ or
‘Apple.’” Id. at 7 (citing Jung ¶ 53). Appellant also asserts that Jung’s
“named entity dictionary” storing “an association between a general concept
and a specific instance of the concept” differs from the claimed “entity
dictionary” storing “an association indicating that an element (i.e., subject,
object, or a predicate) is included in two different natural language phrases.”
Id. (emphases omitted).
The Examiner determines that Jung discloses a “named entity
dictionary” that “connect[s] and store[s] authority data comprising a
named entity corresponding to a concept of the ontology schema” and
“a terminology classified as the named entity.” Final Act. 8, 16, 21
Appeal 2019-005642
Application 14/538,393

7
(emphases omitted) (citing Jung ¶¶ 42, 47). The Examiner also determines
that “if there is a plurality of different named entities corresponding to the
same terminology, the mining pattern generation module may search for and
extract all the named entities.” Id. at 8, 16, 21 (emphasis omitted); see
Ans. 6 (citing Jung ¶¶ 48, 50).
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Jung teach
or suggest the disputed limitations in claims 1, 11, and 17. See Appeal
Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 6–8. Jung defines a “named entity” as a specific
“concept[] of an ontology schema,” e.g., a religion, a person, or a sporting
event. Jung ¶ 39, Fig. 6; see id. ¶ 11. In addition, Jung discloses a “named
entity dictionary” containing the following information:
(1) “a named entity corresponding to a concept
of the ontology schema”;
(2) “a terminology classified as the named entity”;
(3) “an identifier of the terminology”;
(4) “a representative terminology”; and
(5) “an identifier of the representative terminology.”
Id. ¶ 42; see id. ¶¶ 12, 37.
Jung explains that a “terminology” for a named entity corresponds to
a general classification for the specific concept denoted by the named entity.
See Jung ¶¶ 37–38, 53–54, 64, 73. As examples, Jung notes that (1) the
terminology “person” applies to the named entity “Yuna Kim,” (2) the
terminology “thing” applies to the named entity “computer,” (3) the
terminology “thing” applies to the named entity “apple,” and (4) the
Appeal 2019-005642
Application 14/538,393

8
terminology “company” applies to the named entity “Apple Inc.” See id.
¶¶ 53–56, 64–67.
Jung’s “named entity dictionary” uses a named entity as a key value to
determine the terminology or general classification for the specific concept
denoted by the named entity. See Jung ¶ 39, Fig. 6; see also id. ¶¶ 11–12.
For instance, with the named entity “Apple Inc.” as the key value, the
“named entity dictionary” identifies “company” as the terminology or
general classification for that named entity. See id. ¶ 39.
Hence, Jung’s “named entity dictionary” stores associations between
(1) specific concepts and (2) general classifications for the specific concepts.
See Jung ¶¶ 37–42, Fig. 6. In contrast, the disputed limitation in claim 1
requires storing associations between (1) elements or words in phrases from
different triples and (2) the phrases they appear in. Appeal Br. 22–23; see
Spec. ¶¶ 37–38, 59, 77. Similarly, the disputed limitations in claims 11
and 17 require storing associations between (1) entities or words in phrases
from different triples and (2) the phrases they appear in. Appeal Br. 27, 29;
see Spec. ¶¶ 37–38, 59, 77. As Appellant contends, Jung’s “named entity
dictionary” does not store the same association as the claimed “entity
dictionary.” See Appeal Br. 6.
Because the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited
portions of Jung teach or suggest the disputed limitations in claims 1, 11,
and 17, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 11, and 17.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3 AND 21–24
Claims 3 and 21–24 depend from claim 1. For the reasons discussed
for claim 1, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 21–24.
Appeal 2019-005642
Application 14/538,393

9
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 5–10, 14–16, and 18–20
Claims 5–10 depend from claim 1; claims 14–16 depend from
claim 11; and claims 18–20 depend from claim 17. On this record, the
Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited Ateya reference
overcomes the deficiencies in Jung discussed above for claims 1, 11, and 17.
Hence, for the reasons discussed for claims 1, 11, and 17, we do not sustain
the § 103 rejection of claims 5–10, 14–16, and 18–20.
Because the preceding determinations resolve the § 103 rejections
for all pending claims, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments
regarding Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d
1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may
render a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5–11, and
14–24.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 11, 17,
21–24 103 Zhu, Gardner, Jung
1, 3, 11, 17,
21–24
5–10,
14–16,
18–20
103 Zhu, Gardner, Jung, Ateya
5–10,
14–16,
18–20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 5–11,
14–24
REVERSED