Ex Parte Aggarwal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2016

12568976 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/568,976 0912912009
75584 7590 03/25/2016
IBM Corp, (WIP)
c/o Walder Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
17304 Preston Road
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charu C. Aggarwal
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.
YOR920090265US 1 7422
EXAMINER
RAAB, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARD C. AGGARWAL
Appeal2013-010946
Application 12/568,976
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2010-003230010946
Application 11/045,514
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1--4, 6, 7, 11-14, 16, 17, and 20. Claims 5, 8-10, 15, 18, and 19 have
been objected to as being allowable if rewritten in independent form. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 11 are illustrative, with key disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method, in a data processing system having a
processor, for anonymizing data comprising a plurality of graph
data sets, comprising:
receiving, by the processor of the data processing system,
input data comprising a plurality of graph data sets, wherein
each graph data set comprises data for generating a separate
graph from graphs associated with other graph data sets;
performing, by the processor, clustering on the graph
data sets to generate a plurality of clusters, wherein at least one
cluster of the plurality of clusters comprises a plurality of graph
data sets and wherein other clusters in the plurality of clusters
comprise one or more graph data sets;
determining, by the processor, for each cluster in the
plurality of clusters, an aggregate property of the cluster; and
generating, by the processor, for each cluster in the
plurality of clusters, synthetic data representing the cluster,
from the determined aggregate properties of the clusters.
11. A computer program product comprising a computer
readable storage medium having a computer readable program
2
Appeal2010-003230010946
Application 11/045,514
recorded thereon, wherein the computer readable program,
when executed on a computing device, causes the computing
device to:
receive input data comprising a plurality of graph data
sets, wherein each graph data set comprises data for generating
a separate graph from graphs associated with other graph data
sets;
perform clustering on the graph data sets to generate a
plurality of clusters, wherein at least one cluster of the plurality
of clusters comprises a plurality of graph data sets and wherein
other clusters in the plurality of clusters comprise one or more
graph data sets; determine for each cluster in the plurality of
clusters, an aggregate property of the cluster; and
generate for each cluster in the plurality of clusters,
synthetic data representing the cluster, from the determined
aggregate properties of the clusters.
The Examiners Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 7-8.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6, 11-13, 16, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Cormode et al (US 2010/0268719
Al; published Oct. 21, 2010). Final Act. 8-13.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Cormode and Wang (US
2010/0268725 Al; published Oct. 21, 2010). Final Act. 13-14.
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Cormode and Saito (US
2007/0203870 Al; published Aug. 30, 2007). Final Act. 15-16.
3
Appeal2010-003230010946
Application 11/045,514
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4--29)
and the Reply Brief (2-15), in light of the Examiner's response to
Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-10), the following issues
are presented on appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 11-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the
"computer program product" comprising "a computer readable storage
medium" having a computer readable program recorded thereon, as defined
by paragraphs 29-30 of Appellant's Specification, and as recited in claim
11, cannot be a transitory signal?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 11-13, 16, and 20
as being anticipated by Cormode because Cormode fails to teach or suggest
"input data comprising a plurality of graph data sets," as recited in
independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 11 and
20?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 4 and 14 for
obviousness over Cormode and Wang; and (ii) claims 7 and 17 for
obviousness over Cormode and Saito, because none of the applied references
disclose a plurality of graph data sets as recited?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 7-16) in light
of Appellant's contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4--29) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-15) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the
4
Appeal2010-003230010946
Application 11/045,514
Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-
10).
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
We disagree with Appellant's conclusions that claims 11-19 are
directed to statutory subject matter. We adopt as our own (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 7-8), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-3). We
highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as
follows.
Appellant contends (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3) claims 11-19 are
statutory (Reply Br. 5), because (i) the Specification describes statutory
embodiments of a computer readable storage medium such as electronic,
magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system,
apparatus, device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing, and (ii) a
computer readable storage medium (as recited in claims 11-19) is different
than a computer readable medium which the Specification (i-fi-f 30-31)
describes as capable of being a communication, propagation, or transmission
medium. Appellant's contentions are not persuasive because, although we
agree with Appellant that the Specification describes statutory embodiments
of a computer readable medium, we also agree with the Examiner that the
use of the phrases "may be, for example, but not limited to ... " and "may
be ... " (Spec. i130) implies the computer readable storage medium may also
be another type of medium. Thus, the Specification broadly supports both
statutory and non-statutory media, and claims 11-19 must be interpreted to
cover both types of media. See Ex Parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857-
5
Appeal2010-003230010946
Application 11/045,514
1862 ("those of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim term
'machine-readable storage medium' would include signals per se. Further,
where, as here, the broadest reasonable interpretations of all the claims each
covers a signal per se, the claims must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
covering non-statutory subject matter").
We note that Appellant is not precluded from amending claims 11-19
to overcome this rejection. Nor is Appellant precluded from amending the
Specification to specifically define "computer readable storage medium" to
include only statutory storage media. Guidance on this point is provided in
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer
Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010) ("A claim
drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and
non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover
only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by
adding the limitation 'non-transitory' to the claim."). See also U.S. Patent &
Trademark Office, Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 USC
§ 101(August2012 Update) (pages 11-14), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/101_training_aug2012.pdf
(noting that while the recitation "non-transitory" is a viable option for
overcoming the presumption that those media encompass signals or carrier
waves, merely indicating that such media are "physical" or tangible" will not
overcome such presumption).
Consequently we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting
independent claim 11, as well as claims 12-19 which depend therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
6
Appeal2010-003230010946
Application 11/045,514
Rejection Under 35 U.S. C. § 102(e)
We agree with Appellant's contentions as to claims 1-3, 6, 11-13, 16,
and 20 (App. Br. 7-15; Reply Br. 5-15) because the Examiner has failed to
show that Cormode teaches or suggests "input data comprising a plurality of
graph data sets." While we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3--4) that
Cormode discloses (i-fi-f 14, 22-25) using multiple data sets to generate
multiple graphs (each set used to make a single graph), the Examiner has
failed to show that Cormode teaches or suggests that the input data for a
single graph (or cluster) is comprised of more than one graph data set.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 11-13, 16, and 20.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
For similar reasons to those described supra with regard to the
anticipation rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 11-13, 16, and 20, and because
claims 4, 7, 14, and 17 each depend from independent claims 1 or 11, we
also do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 4, 7, 14,
and 17, which are based on the Examiner's erroneous findings with regard to
Cormode.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the
"computer program product" comprising "a computer readable storage
medium" having a computer readable program recorded thereon, as defined
by paragraphs 29-30 of Appellant's Specification, and as recited in claim
11, can be a transitory signal or some other type of non-statutory medium.
7
Appeal2010-003230010946
Application 11/045,514
(2) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-3, 6, 11-13, 16, and 20 as being anticipated by Cormode because
Cormode fails to teach or suggest "input data comprising a plurality of graph
data sets," as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in
independent claims 11 and 20.
(3) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting (i)
claims 4 and 14 for obviousness over Cormode and Wang; and (ii) claims 7
and 17 for obviousness over Cormode and Saito, because none of the applied
references disclose a plurality of graph data sets as recited in independent
claims 1 and 11, from which claims 4, 7, 14, and 17 ultimately depend.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 11-13, 16, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 4, 7, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8