Ex Parte Balinsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

13259216 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/259,216 09/23/2011 Helen Balinsky
56436 7590 08/24/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82853266 3291
EXAMINER
TRAKTOVENKO, IL YA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2129
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HELEN BALINSKY and STEVEN J. SIMSKE
Appeal2015-002010
Application 13/259 ,216
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .. .. , 1 .. • .. ,..... ,- T T r'1 I'\ l\ -1 ,..... Al / '\. I"" , "1
Appeuants' seeK our review unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ or me
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-19. Claim 7 has been
objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of
the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 2. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-002010
Application 13/259 ,216
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to a classifier that determines a
topic or topics to which an object belongs. Spec. 3:3-13. Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a plurality of topics to which an object
potentially belongs, each topic characterized by a probability
distribution profile of a plurality of representative items that
belong to the topic;
selecting, by a processor of a computing device, a plurality
of sample items from the object less than a total number of a
plurality of items of the object;
determining, by the processor, a probability that the object
belongs to each topic using the probability distribution profile
characterizing each topic and the sample items selected from the
object; and,
outputting at least the topics to which the object belongs
with non-zero probability.
Rejections
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Schwartz (US 2002/0138478 Al; published Sept. 26,
2002. Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Schwartz, Shao (US
2009/0210369 Al; published Aug. 20, 2009), and Inakoshi (US
2006/0213976 Al; published Sept. 28, 2006). Final Act. 6-17.
2
Appeal2015-002010
Application 13/259 ,216
Claims 4, 12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Schwartz and Raffill (US 7, 792,850
Bl; issued Sept. 7, 2010). Final Act. 17-18.
Claims 8, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Schwartz and Zhang (US
2006/0059121 Al; published Mar. 16, 2006). Final Act. 18-19.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Schwartz and Billheimer (US
6,611,825 Bl; issued Aug. 26, 2003). Final Act. 19-22.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that Schwartz discloses "determining,
by the processor, a probability that the object belongs to each topic using the
probability distribution profile characterizing each topic and the sample
items selected from the object," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection
Schwartz relates to an information retrieval system that, in response to
a query, retrieves documents based on an estimation of the likelihood that
the document is relevant to the query. Schwartz i-fi-1 4, 20. To estimate the
likelihood that a document is relevant given a particular query, Schwartz
discloses modeling the information retrieval process using a hidden Markov
model. Schwartz i122. The hidden Markov model includes a number of
states and each state has an associated probability distribution. Id. Schwartz
discloses that the hidden Markov model includes three states. Schwartz
3
Appeal2015-002010
Application 13/259 ,216
if 23. A first state, state 102, reflects that a word in the query was derived
from a set of general words; a second state, state 104, reflects that a word in
the query was selected from one or more documents; and a third state, state
106, reflects that a word in the query was selected to indicate a topic in
which the user is interested. Schwartz if 23.
Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds Schwartz
discloses that the third state is represented by a hidden Markov model
containing a number of states reflecting the topics that a particular document
discusses. Final Act. 4 (citing Schwartz, Fig. ID; if 26). The Examiner
further finds:
T,J
1U.
A probability for the particular query word being used to indicate
[a] particular topic means a probability that the object belongs to
each topic. This means determining, by the processor, a
probability that the object belongs to each topic using the
probability distribution profile characterizing each topic and the
sample items selected from the object.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Schwartz discloses
the disputed limitation. App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 1. Particularly, Appellants
contend Schwartz does not disclose determining a probability that the object
belongs to each topic using sample items selected from the object, as
required by claim 1. Reply Br. 4.
In response, the Examiner finds:
"Hidden Markov model 160 contains a number of states 162-166
reflecting the topics that a particular document discusses. Each
state contains a probability for the particular query word being
used to indicate that particular topic." - Schwartz teaches a
probability for the particular query word being used to indicate
that particular topic. Words mean sample items. Document
means object. Topics that a particular document discusses mean
4
Appeal2015-002010
Application 13/259 ,216
that the object belongs to a topic. Words being used to indicate
particular topic means using the sample items selected from the
object.
Ans. 7-8 (citing Schwartz, Fig. ID; i-f 26).
We find Appellants' contention persuasive. The Examiner identifies
the document as corresponding to the claimed "object." Final Act. 2-3. We
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) in finding Schwartz discloses hidden
Markov model 160 contains a number of states reflecting the topics that a
particular document discusses and that each state contains a probability
(Schwartz i-f 26). However, Schwartz discloses that the probability is "for [a]
particular query word being used to indicate [a] particular topic," rather than
a probability that a word from a document (i.e., a sample item from the
object) indicates the topic. See Schwartz i-f 26 (emphasis added). The
Examiner identifies the object having sample items as a document and the
words in the document. As such, the Examiner's findings fail to show
Schwartz discloses the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
and claims 5, 9, 13, 15, and 18, which recite similar limitations.
§ 103 Rejections
Each of claims 2--4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 depends, directly
or indirectly, from one of independent claims 1, 9, and 15. The Examiner
has not established on this record that the secondary references relied on in
rejecting these claims cure the deficiencies of Schwartz as set forth above
with respect to the independent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 2--4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, and 19
for the reasons discussed supra.
5
Appeal2015-002010
Application 13/259 ,216
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6 and 8-19.
REVERSED
6