Ex Parte Ananthanarayanan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2017

12890060 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017)

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.
12/890,060 09/24/2010 Rema Ananthanarayanan IN920100065US1
(790.076)
7554
89885 7590 02/08/2017
FFRFNFF fr ASSOPTATFS T T C
EXAMINER
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
SAEED, USMAAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2017 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 REMA ANANTHANARAYANAN, ANURADHA
BHAMIDIPATY, KRISHNA KUMMAMURU, DEBDOOT
MUKHERJEE, DEEPAK S. PADMANABHAN,
VIBHA SINGHAL SINHA, and BIPLAV SRIVASTAVA
Appeal 2015-001759
Application 12/890,060
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3—5, 7—10, 12, 13, 15, and 16—21. Claims 2, 6, 11, and 14 have
been canceled, and claims 3, 8, 12, 17, and 20 were canceled in an after final
amendment entered by the Advisory Action mailed April 9, 2014 (see also
App. Br. 14). Therefore, the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9,
10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21 are before us on appeal. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1,10, and 19 are independent and all pertain to a method for
producing a global model that describes a collection of documents. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
method claim 1, which is reproduced below with emphases added:
1. A method for producing a global model describing a
collection of documents comprising:
executing with one or more processors one or more
modules of computer program code configured for accessing a
collection of documents, the collection of
documents comprising labeled documents and unlabeled
documents;
classifying documents of the collection of documents to
produce classified documents of one or more types;
said classifying comprising producing a domain sub­
model for each document type;
extracting concepts from the classified documents and
determining relationships between the concepts;
thereupon generating a global domain model for the one
or more domain submodels, based on the relationships between
the concepts;
2
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
said generating of a global domain model comprising
building an initial model and then refining the model, said
refining comprising:
automatically generating and providing one or
more indicative words as suggestions to a user based on
the classified documents;
receiving one or more indicative words chosen by
the user as input; and
iteratively re-classifying the documents using the
one or more indicative words chosen by the user;
thereupon outputting the global model;
ascertaining one or more changes to the collection of
documents; and
generating a new global model based on the one or more
changes to the collection of documents.
Remaining independent claims 10 and 19 recite similar limitations
drawn to a computer program product (claim 10), and a system having a
memory and processor configured to perform (claim 19), the global model
producing method of claim 1.
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Argawal et al. (US
2001/0037324 Al, published Nov. 1, 2001) in view of Rujan et al. (US
2009/0216693 Al, published Aug. 27, 2009) in further view of Pollara et al.
(US 2009/0083200 Al, published Mar. 26, 2009). Final Act. 5-7.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Agrawal, Rujan, Pollara, and
3
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
Schmidtler et al. (US 20011/0145178 Al, published June 11,2011)
(“Enders”). Final Act. 16—17.1
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 13—
17)2 * 4in light of the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the
Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—7), the following principal issue is presented on
appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18,
19, and 21 over the combination of Agrawal, Rujan, and Pollara; and (ii)
claims 7 and 16 over the same base combination modified by Schmidtler,
because the base combination fails to teach or suggest the disputed
limitations of a global model producing method including the steps of (1)
ascertaining one or more changes to a collection of documents, and (2)
generating a new global model based on the one or more changes, as recited
in representative independent claim 1?
1 Although the Examiner omitted Rujan and Pollara in the heading of the
rejection of claims 7 and 16 (see Ans. 16), we consider this as harmless
error. It is clear from the record that Rujan and Pollara are applied to the
respective base claims 1 and 10 of dependent claims 7 and 16 (see e.g., Final
Act. 3—5 rejecting claim 1 over Agrawal, Rujan, and Pollara). The Examiner
rejects claims 7 and 16 over “Agrawal, as modified” (Final Act. 16).
Therefore, we consider claims 7 and 16 to be rejected over Agrawal as
modified by Rujan and Pollara, and further in view of Schmidtler.
2 Admittedly, Appellants’ Reply Brief presents no new arguments, and
simply “maintain[s] the positions stated in the Appeal Brief’ (Reply Br. 2).
4
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2—17) in light
of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 13—17) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—
7).
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments as to independent claims 1,
10, and 19. With regard to representative independent claim 1, 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. 3—5), and (2) the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’
Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—7). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and
suggestions of the references as follows.
At the outset, we note that Appellants present general arguments (see
App. Br. 14—16) to all of the claims as one single group, and do not point to
a specific claim. We also point out that Appellants argue that the base
combination fails to teach ascertaining changes to a document collection,
and generating a new global model based on the changes (see App. Br. 16).
However, the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness is based upon the
base combination teaching or suggesting the recited invention. And, we
agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 3—5; Ans. 3—7) that the base
combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of a global model
producing method including the steps of (1) ascertaining one or more
changes to a collection of documents, and (2) generating a new global model
based on the one or more changes, as recited in representative independent
claim 1.
5
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
Appellants also argue (App. Br. 14) that although Agrawal describes
keyword searching in paragraphs 23 and 30, Agrawal nevertheless fails to
teach or suggest employing user input in the form of indicative words as
claimed. However, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 3) that Agrawal
discloses keyword searching in paragraph 84, and Pollara discloses a user
input 405 to receive indicative words in paragraphs 66 and 68 (Final Act. 5;
Ans. 6—7). Thus, the base combination teaches or suggests employing user
input in the form of indicative words as claimed.
Appellants’ argument that Agrawal’s keyword searching is not
equivalent to a user appending indicative words (App. Br. 14) is not
persuasive inasmuch as representative independent claim 1 does not contain
the word “appending.” Thus, Appellants’ argument in this regard is not
commensurate in scope with the subject matter recited in claim 1.
Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 14) that Agrawal fails to teach or
suggest generating a classification model or a global model is unpersuasive
in light of our agreement with the Examiner (Ans. 4—7) that a combination
of Agrawal and Pollara teaches or suggests this limitation.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 4, 5, 9, 10,
13, 15, 18, 19, and 21 grouped therewith. For similar reasons, and because
(i) claims 7 and 16 each respectively depend from claims 1 and 10, therefore
contain all of the salient limitations; and (ii) although Appellants indicate an
intention only to argue the base combination (see App. Br. 12), Appellants
argue claims 7 and 16 for the same reasons as claims 1 and 10 (see App.
Br. 16—17), we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 7 and 16.
6
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15,
16, 18, 19, and 21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
base combination of Agrawal, Rujan, and Pollara because the base
combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of a global model
producing method including the steps of (1) ascertaining one or more
changes to a collection of documents, and (2) generating a new global model
based on the one or more changes, as recited in representative independent
claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18,
19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7