Ex Parte BEEN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2017

12719548 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 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.
12/719,548 03/08/2010 DAVID O. BEEN SVL920090056US 1/0920.0208 7289
46157 7590 01/26/2017
EDELL, SHAPIRO, & FINNAN, LLC
9801 Washingtonian Blvd.
Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
EXAMINER
KIM, PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2017 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):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID O. BEEN, MICHAEL BUSCH,
OS AMU FURUSAWA, FREDERICK S. GRENNAN,
FUMIHIKO TERUI, and JUSTO L. PEREZ1
Appeal 2016-003858
Application 12/719,548
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—15, 26, and 27.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
1 Appellants’ Brief (Br.) identifies the real party-in-interest as International
Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”). Br. 3.
2 Claims 16—23 are withdrawn from consideration, and not subject to appeal.
Br. 5.
Appeal 2016-003858
Application 12/719,548
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to re-indexing metadata in order to change the
indexing settings while maintaining availability to the existing metadata
index. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer implemented method for dynamically re­
indexing metadata associated with content in a plurality of
documents, each of the documents having a unique document
identifier, the method comprising:
indexing the content of the plurality of documents to
generate an inverted content index;
indexing the metadata of the plurality of documents to
generate a first metadata index, the first metadata index being an
inverted index that is parallel with the content index;
storing the metadata of the plurality of documents in a
metadata store in native form and cross referenced with the
unique document identifiers;
re-indexing the metadata of the plurality of documents
from the metadata store to generate a second metadata index
separately and independently from the first metadata index while
maintaining the first metadata index available for searching and
separate from the second metadata index, the second metadata
index being an inverted index that is parallel with the content
index, wherein the re-indexing of the metadata results in different
indexing settings for the second metadata index in relation to the
first metadata index; and
replacing the first metadata index with the second
metadata index and discarding the first metadata index.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hoemkvist US 2008/0306949 A1 Dec. 11, 2008
2
Appeal 2016-003858
Application 12/719,548
Loofbourrow US 2008/0307013 A1 Dec. 11, 2008
Renkes US 7,836,037 Nov. 16,2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—15 and 26—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Loofbourrow, Renkes, and Hoemkvist. Final Act.
2-6.
ISSUE FOR DECISION
Has the Examiner erred in concluding the cited references teach,
suggest, or otherwise render obvious:
re-indexing the metadata of the plurality of documents from the
metadata store to generate a second metadata index separately
and independently from the first metadata index while
maintaining the first metadata index available for searching and
separate from the second metadata index, the second metadata
index being an inverted index that is parallel with the content
index, wherein the re-indexing of the metadata results in different
indexing settings for the second metadata index in relation to the
first metadata index,
as recited in independent claim 1, and recited similarly in independent
claims 6 and 11?
OPINION
The Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds the combined teachings of
Loofbourrow, Renkes, and Hoemkvist render obvious the recited “re­
indexing” step. More specifically, the Examiner finds Loofbourrow
discloses the use of a delta postings lists for supplementing the existing
3
Appeal 2016-003858
Application 12/719,548
contents of an inverted index. Ans. 2. The Examiner further finds Renkes
(col. 9,11. 14—38) teaches “re-indexing the metadata of the plurality of
documents from the metadata store to generate a second metadata index
separately and independently from the first metadata index while
maintaining the first metadata index available for searching and separate
from the second metadata index.” Ans. 2-4. In particular, the Examiner
finds the cited passage in Renkes “discloses that a copy of an old index (i.e.
a first metadata index) and an old delta index may be available for searching
during a merge operation.” Ans. 4. The Examiner notes that Loofbourrow
and Renkes do not teach “wherein the re-indexing of the metadata results in
different indexing settings for the second metadata index in relation to the
first metadata index,” and finds the two-level term table indices disclosed in
Hoemkvist show different indexing settings for a second metadata index in
relation to a first metadata index. Ans. 4—5.
Appellants ’ Contentions
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the cited references
each pertain to supplementing an existing index to reflect changes in
underlying data, and not to creating a new index with different indexing
parameters (i.e., a separate and independent index) as recited in the claims.
Br. 12-17.
Appellants argue Loofbourrow is directed to supplementing an index
when changes are made to underlying indexed data using delta posting lists.
Br. 13. Thus, when underlying data changes, those changes are not
immediately made to the main index, but instead are reflected in a delta
postings list. When a query is run against an outdated index, the delta
4
Appeal 2016-003858
Application 12/719,548
postings are applied to the results to ensure the most recent changes are
reflected in the query results. Br. 13—14.
Appellants also argue the teachings of Renkes are inapposite.
Appellants assert Renkes describes the use of multiple delta indexes to
accept updates which are eventually merged with a main index. Br. 15—16.
According to Appellants, the portion of Renkes’ description cited by the
Examiner does not teach the claimed re-indexing because the main index
106 in Renkes is never replaced and deleted. Br. 15. Appellants submit it is
only the delta indexes which are discarded in Renkes. Br. 15—16.
Appellants also challenge the Examiner’s findings with respect to
Hoemkvist. Br. 16. Appellants contend Hoemkvist describes only an
inverted index that utilizes a 2-level term table and a posting tables to
generate postings lists. Id. According to Appellants there is no suggestion
or teaching in Hoemkvist of the recited re-indexing metadata to generate a
second metadata index separately and independently from a first metadata
index. Id.
Analysis
We are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in finding the
combination of Loufburrow, Renkes, and Hoemkvist teaches “re-indexing
the metadata ... to generate a second metadata index separately and
independently from the first metadata index while maintaining the first
metadata index available for searching and separate from the second
metadata index . . . wherein the re-indexing of the metadata results in
different indexing settings” as recited in claim 1.
The cited references each address problems associated with updating
an index to account for changes in the underlying data. That is, the changes
5
Appeal 2016-003858
Application 12/719,548
made to the indexes described in each of the cited references maintain the
existing indexing settings, and do not replace an existing index with a new
index having different index settings. They are not concerned with re­
indexing the metadata to produce a new metadata index that replaces the
existing index with different indexing settings. Constrained by the record
before us, we must agree with Appellants that a prima facie case of
obviousness has not been made out in the first instance by a preponderance
of evidence. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and
claims 2—5 and 26—27 which depend therefrom. For the same reason, we
also do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 6 and 11, and their
respective dependent claims 7—10 and 12—15.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15 and 26—27 is reversed.
REVERSED
6