Cray Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 6, 2020

2018007160 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 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.
15/090,754 04/05/2016 David Mizell 90837730 4143
56436 7590 05/06/2020
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
LE, UYEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2020 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):
chris.mania@hpe.com
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID MIZELL, CHRISTOPHER DOUGLASS RICKETT, and
ANDREW STEVEN KOPSER
____________

Appeal 2018-007160
Application 15/090,754
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Examiner’s final
rejections of claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22, all of the pending claims. Appeal
Br. 5.2 Claims 2–8, 10–14, 16–20, and 23 are canceled. Amdt. After

1 “Appellant” here refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Cray Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Amendment Under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.33 (“Amdt. After Appeal,” filed January 23, 2018), Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed January 23, 2018), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
June 28, 2018); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed October 10,
2017), the Advisory Action (“Adv. Act,” mailed March 7, 2018), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 18, 2018); and the Specification
(“Spec.,” filed April 5, 2016). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings
Appeal 2018-007160
Application 15/090,754

2

Appeal 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to computer-readable media,
methods, and computing systems “for identifying results of a query that
includes a type predicate.” Spec. ¶ 17. The query may have a non-type
query triple and a type query triple; the non-type query triple has a subject, a
non-type predicate, and an object, and the type query triple has a subject, a
type predicate, and an object. Id. The subjects and objects are entities. Id.
In some embodiments, a search augmentation system maintains
a collection of facts that includes a triple for each fact and a type
table that maps entities of the facts to their corresponding type.
For example, each fact may represent a triple that includes a
subject, a predicate, and an object with the subject and the object
each being an entity. The type table may have an entry for each
entity along with the types of that entity.
Id.; see id., Fig. 2.
As noted above, claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22 stand rejected, and each of
these claims is independent. Appeal Br. 32–35 (Claims App.). Claim 1,
reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative.
1. A computer-readable storage medium that is not a transitory,
propagating signal storing computer-executable instructions for
controlling a computing system to provide results for a query by
performing a method comprising:
receiving a query having a non-type query triple and a type
query triple, the non-type query triple having a subject, a non-
type predicate, and an object, the type query triple having a

and determinations and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to
these documents.
Appeal 2018-007160
Application 15/090,754

3

subject, a type predicate, and an object, the subjects and objects
being entities;
retrieving, from a fact table of triples, triples that match
the non-type query triple;
for each retrieved triple,
when a type for an entity of the retrieved triple is
specified by the query, retrieving from a type table an
entry for the entity; and
when the retrieved entry indicates that that entity is
not associated with that type, indicating that the retrieved
triple does not match the query; and
providing as the results of the received query the retrieved
triples except the retrieved triples that have been indicated as not
matching the query.
Id. at 32 (emphasis added). Claims 9, 15, 21, and 22 recite similar
limitations, including those set forth in Appellant’s table. Reply Br. 4–5; but
see Ans. 9.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following references in rejecting the
claims:
Name3 Number Published Filed
Srikanth US 2011/0196852 A1 Aug. 11, 2011 Feb. 5, 2010
Srinivasen US 2012/0303668 A1 Nov. 29, 2012 May 24, 2011
Specifically, claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22 stand rejected as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Srinivasen and Srikanth.4

3 All reference citations are to the first named author or inventor only.
4 The Examiner also rejected the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite (Final Act. 5–6) and under the judicially-created doctrine of
Appeal 2018-007160
Application 15/090,754

4

Final Act. 10–12.5
Appellant contests the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1,
9, 15, 21, and 22. Appeal Br. 21–30; Reply Br. 1–5. We review the
appealed rejection of the independent claims for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We address the rejection of the independent claims below.
ANALYSIS
Non-Obviousness of Independent Claims Over Srinivasen and Srikanth
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Srinivasen and Srikanth. Final Act. 10–12.
In particular, claim 1 recites,
retrieving, from a fact table of triples, triples that match
the non-type query triple;
for each retrieved triple,
when a type for an entity of the retrieved triple is specified

obviousness-type double patenting (id. at 7–9). The Examiner has
withdrawn each of these rejections. Adv. Act. 1; Ans. 3.
5 Although the Examiner finds Srinivasen “did not specifically detail the
claimed exception” of the independent claims and Srikanth “disclosed the
claimed exception” in the Final Office Action (Final Act. 12), in the Answer,
the Examiner states “it is noted that the argued exclude[d] triples did not
apply to any of the claims 1, 15, 21 and 22, because those claims did not cite
any exclude[d] triples step, except claim 9” (Ans. 9). These inconsistent
statements raise questions about the basis of the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 15, 21, and 22. See Reply Br. 4–5 (persuasively showing excluded
triples step in each independent claim); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(b)
(procedure for responding to new ground of rejection in the Examiner’s
answer). Nevertheless, because we reverse for other reasons, we need not
address this inconsistency further.
Appeal 2018-007160
Application 15/090,754

5

by the query, retrieving from a type table an entry for the entity;
and
when the retrieved entry indicates that that entity is not
associated with that type, indicating that the retrieved triple does
not match the query.
Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Srinivasen discloses
“retrieving, from a fact table of triples, triples that match the non-type query
triple.” Final Act. 11 (citing Srinivasen, Figs. 2, 5, 6 (Resource Description
Framework (RFD) data 200), ¶ 26 (“the RDF data 130 is formatted using the
RDF language such that facts in this language are represented by RDF
triples.”)). Further, the Examiner explains that Srinivasen discloses,
for each retrieved triple, when a type for an entity of the
retrieved triple is specified by the query and a type table indicates
that that entity is not associated with that type, indicating that the
retrieved triple does not match the query [e.g., per the RDF fact
table (e.g., 200, Fig. 2 & 200, Fig. 5-6) and SPARQL application
queries to decide null-ability at S.: 0045-0073, wherein the query
block (e.g., 502, Fig. 5) derives the typed metadata table (e.g.,
504, Fig. 5, 604, Fig. 6) from the RDF input fact table (e.g., 200,
Fig. 2 & 5), the RDF fact table clearly include the claimed typed
and non-typed triples such as those triples with typed or un-typed
predicates, subjects and objects fields (e.g., 200 in Figs. 2 & 5-
6) and the derived metadata typed table/views (e.g., 504, Fig. 5,
604, Fig. 6) clearly did not indicated/count the entries that do
not match / associated with the pre-defined “:rdf:type” by
applying the query transformation function calls such as
SEM_MATCH() and SEM_MODELS() or using other rules. For
other details please referred to Fig. 9A-12 with associated texts]
Id. (emphasis added).
Appeal 2018-007160
Application 15/090,754

6

Srinivasen’s Figure 5, including our annotations, is reproduced below.

Figure 5 depicts RFD data 200, query block 502, and the identification of
metadata 504 for class information, including “student” class 506 within the
metadata and count value 508 of the number of subjects, i.e., “John,” “Jill,”
and “Mary,” that correspond to the class. Srinivasen ¶¶ 15, 46; see id.,
Fig. 6 (metadata 604), ¶ 49. We have annotated RDF data 200 to including
count numbering 1, 2, and 3. We note, however, that the table of metadata
504 does not include the subjects, i.e., the entities. See Appeal Br. 32
(Claims App.) (claim 1 recites “the subjects and objects being entities”);
Spec. ¶ 18 (“the search augmentation system adds an entry to the type table
that maps the entity ‘John Smith’ to the types of ‘politician’ and
Appeal 2018-007160
Application 15/090,754

7

‘professor.’”).
Appellant challenges the proposed combination of the teachings of
Srinivasen and Srikanth for at least three reasons. Appeal Br. 21–27; see
Reply Br. 1–5 (Sections B–D). First, Appellant contends the Examiner fails
to show where Srinivasen teaches or suggests “a query having a non-type
query triple and a type query triple.” Appeal Br. 21–23. Second, Appellant
contends the Examiner fails to show where Srinivasen teaches or suggests
both a fact table and a type table. Id. at 23–26. Third, Appellant contends
the Examiner fails to show where Srikanth teaches or suggests excluding
retrieved triples that do not match the query. Id. at 26–27; see Spec. ¶ 19;
see also supra note 5 (the Examiner’s inconsistent findings). We are
persuaded that at least Appellant’s second challenge identifies dispositive
Examiner error.
As noted above, claim 1 defines a “fact table” as comprised of
“triples,” where “the non-type query triple having a subject, a non-type
predicate, and an object, the type query triple having a subject, a type
predicate, and an object.” Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.); see Spec. ¶ 2 (“The
triples of a semantic data model may be stored in a semantic database that
may include a fact table containing the triples representing the facts.”).
Further claim 1 recites “a type for an entity of the retrieved triple is specified
by the query.” Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.). The Specification explains,
“[e]xamples of a type predicate include the ‘RDF:type’ predicate defined by
the [RDF] and the ‘is-a’ or ‘is-a’ predicate of object-oriented programming.
A non-type predicate is any predicate other than a type predicate, such as the
‘degree,’ ‘livesin,’ and ‘citizenof’ predicates described in the background
section.” Spec. ¶ 17.
Appeal 2018-007160
Application 15/090,754

8

Figure 2 of the instant application is reproduced below.

Figure 2 depicts a block diagram illustrating the data structures of the search
augmentation system, i.e., triples populating fact table 210 and entities and
types drawn from the triples of fact table 210 populating type table 220.
Spec. ¶¶ 8, 24; see Appeal Br. 23–24. Thus, we understand the fact table
comprises data to which the recited query is applied and the type table
comprises entities matched with types derived from the application of the
query to the fact table. Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 20–22).
Consequently, the type table allows provision of the subset of triples that
match the types of the query triples for a given entity and excludes those that
do not. See Spec. ¶¶ 6, 18; see also Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.) (claim 1
recites “when the retrieved entry indicates that that entity is not associated
Appeal 2018-007160
Application 15/090,754

9

with that type, indicating that the retrieved triple does not match the query;
and providing as the results of the received query the retrieved triples except
the retrieved triples that have been indicated as not matching the query”
(emphases added)).
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s reliance on the teachings of
Srinivasen’s Figures 5 and 6 to teach or suggest the recited type table is
misplaced. Appeal Br. 24–25 (quoting Final Act. 11 (citing Srinivasen,
Figs. 5, 6, ¶¶ 45, 46)). In particular, Appellant contends that neither
metadata 504 of Figure 5 nor metadata 604 of Figure 6 “‘map[s] entities of
the facts to their corresponding type’ as does a type table.” Id. at 25
(quoting Spec. ¶ 17). Appellant further contends:
Although metadata 504 of Figure 5 includes the type “student,”
metadata 504 is not a type table. Metadata 504 maps the type
“student” (and any other types of the fact table 200) to a count of
the facts (or triples) in fact table 200 that have “rdf:type” as the
predicate and “student” as the object. In other words, metadata
504 simply maps types to counts. As specified by claim 1, the
subject and the object of a triple are entities. Since a count is not
a subject or object of a triple, the mapping of a type to a count is
not a mapping from an entity to a type or even from a type to an
entity.
Metadata 604 of Figure 6 of Srinivasan provides a count
of how many students in the fact table have the properties of
“age” and “friendof.” The fact table 200 defines “John,” “Jill,”
and “Mary” to be of the type “student,” but only “John” and “Jill”
are the subject of triples with “age” as the predicate. Thus,
metadata 604 maps the combination of “student” and “age” to
the count of “2.” Since neither “age” nor “2” is a subject or
object of a triple, metadata 604 does not map from entities to
types or even from types to entities.
Id.; see Reply Br. 3.
In response to Appellant’s contentions, the Examiner merely restates
Appeal 2018-007160
Application 15/090,754

10

the findings that table 200 of Srinivasen’s Figures 2 and 5 discloses the
recited “fact table” of claim 1 and that metadata 504 of Srinivasen’s Figure 5
teaches or suggests the recited “type table” of claim 1. Ans. 8–9 (citing
Srinivasen, Figs. 2, 5, ¶¶ 42–46). We find the Examiner’s finding regarding
the recited type table conclusory and unpersuasive. We agree with
Appellant that the Examiner fails to show that Srinivasen teaches or suggests
the recited type table.
Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Because we are persuaded the Examiner erred with respect to the
obviousness rejection of claim 1, we also are persuaded the Examiner erred
with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 9, 15, 21, and 22, each of
which includes corresponding limitations. For this reason, we do not sustain
the rejection of those claims.
DECISIONS
1. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of
Srinivasen and Srikanth.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22 are not unpatentable.6

6 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether the pending claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter
consistent with the Office’s most recent guidance. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019); see
October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (October 17, 2019).
Appeal 2018-007160
Application 15/090,754

11

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 9, 15, 21,
22
103 Srinivasen,
Srikanth

1, 9, 15, 21,
22

REVERSED