Ex Parte Beraudier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13243928 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/243,928 09/23/2011
43168 7590 10/03/2016
LAW OFFICE OF MARCIAL DOUBET, P, L
PO BOX 1087
Lake Placid, FL 33862
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vincent Beraudier
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.
RS\V920110040US1 4180
EXAMINER
TRAKTOVENKO, IL YA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2129
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
mld@mindspring.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINCENT BERAUDIER and GEORGES-HENRI MOLL
Appeal2015-000744
Application 13/243,928
Technology Center 2100
Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.,"
filed October 6, 2014), and Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed July 22, 2014),
and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed August 26, 2014) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 12, 2014).
Appeal2015-000744
Application 13/243,928
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to computing systems that generate
mixed integer linear programming matrices to optimize a data model. Spec.
iT 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1 and 15, which are reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method of generating a mixed
integer linear programming matrix for solving an optimization of
a data model, comprising:
programmatically generating an index definition to
represent each primary key of each of a plurality of tables in an
entity-relationship data model schema that represents the data
model, and programmatically generating an index object to
represent each value of each primary key;
programmatically generating a constant definition to
represent each input field of each of the tables, and
programmatically generating a constant object to represent each
value of each input field;
programmatically generating a variable definition to
represent each output field of each of the tables, and
programmatically generating a variable object to represent each
value of each output field;
programmatically storing, in a symbolic matrix structure,
at least one constraint on an optimization, each constraint
reflecting at least one of the input fields, the constants, or the
output fields;
programmatically generating, from the symbolic matrix
and the data model, a MIP matrix; and
solving the MIP matrix with a MIP solver to yield the
optimization.
15. A computer program product for generating a mixed
integer linear programming matrix for solving an optimization of
a data model, the computer program product comprising:
2
Appeal2015-000744
Application 13/243,928
a computer readable storage medium having computer
readable program code embodied therein, the computer readable
program code configured for:
programmatically generating an index definition to
represent each primary key of each of a plurality of tables in an
entity-relationship data model schema that represents the data
model, and programmatically generating an index object to
represent each value of each primary key;
programmatically generating a constant definition to
represent each input field of each of the tables, and
programmatically generating a constant object to represent each
value of each input field;
programmatically generating a variable definition to
represent each output field of each of the tables, and
programmatically generating a variable object to represent each
value of each output field;
programmatically storing, in a symbolic matrix structure,
at least one constraint on an optimization, each constraint
reflecting at least one of the input fields, the constants, or the
output fields;
programmatically generating, from the symbolic matrix
and the data model, a MIP matrix; and
solving the MIP matrix with a MIP solver to yield the
optimization.
REFERENCES
Moll US 2009/0228309 Al Sept. 10, 2009
Johannes Bisschop & Marcel Roelofs, AIMMS: The Language
Reference, AIMMS 3.1 (2000). ("Bisschop").
REJECTIONS
Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2-3.
3
Appeal2015-000744
Application 13/243,928
Claims 1-5, 9-12, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Moll. Final Act. 3-16.
Claims 6-8, 13, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moll and Bisschop. Final Act. 16-21.
ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 turns on whether claim 15 is directed to non-statutory
subject matter.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 9-
12, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Moll turns on
whether Moll discloses generating a mixed integer program ("MIP") matrix
from a symbolic matrix and a data model as recited by independent claims 1,
9, and 15.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6-8, 13,
14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
Moll and Bisschop turns on whether (a) the combination teaches a symbolic
matrix comprising (i) a column for each of the variable definitions and (ii) a
row containing an expression for each constraint, as recited by dependent
claims 6, 13, and 19, and (b) the Examiner improperly combined Moll and
Bisschop.
ANALYSIS
Claims 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 1 OJ as being directed to non-
statutory subject matter
Claims 15-20 are directed to a "computer program product"
comprising a "computer readable storage medium having computer readable
4
Appeal2015-000744
Application 13/243,928
program code embodied therein" configured to perform certain actions.
The Examiner finds claims 15-20 are directed to non-statutory subject
matter because the term "computer readable storage medium" encompasses
non-statutory subject matter, such as a carrier wave.2 Final Act. 2; Ans. 5.
The Examiner finds "computer readable storage medium" includes non-
statutory subject matter because the Specification does not preclude the term
from including carrier waves. Final Act. 2 (citing Spec. i-f 97). Appellants
argue that the term "computer readable storage medium" is directed to only
statutory subject matter based upon its description in the Specification, and
its distinction from other types of media that include non-statutory subject
matter. App. Br. 14--17 (citing Spec. i-f 97); Reply Br. 2-3.
We disagree with Appellants. In the precedential case, Ex parte
Mewherter, Appeal No. 2012-007692, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862, 2013 WL
4477509, *6-7 (PTAB May 8, 2013) (precedential), the Board concluded
that unless the claim language, given its broadest reasonable interpretation in
light of the specification, precludes non-statutory subject matter, a "storage
medium" can potentially include non-statutory subject matter, such as
signals per se, and thereby not satisfy § 101. Ex parte Mewherter, 107
2 The Examiner suggests modifying the claim language to include the
adjective "non-transitory" for the recited "computer readable storage
medium" to overcome the rejection. Final Act. 3 (emphasis in original).
This suggestion is in accordance with guidance provided by the Office. See
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.").
5
Appeal2015-000744
Application 13/243,928
USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential). 3 The Specification here
provides:
The computer readable medium may be a computer readable
signal medium or a computer readable storage medium. A
computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but not
limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic,
infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any
suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples
(a non-exhaustive list) of the computer readable storage medium
would include the following: an electrical connection having one
or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a
random access memory ("RAM"), a read-only memory
("ROM"), an erasable programmable read-only memory
("EPROM" or flash memory), a portable compact disc read-only
memory ("CD-ROM"), DVD, an optical storage device, a
magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the
foregoing. In the context of this document, a computer readable
storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain or
store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction
execution system, apparatus, or device.
Spec. i-f 97 (emphasis added). The Specification; therefore; includes
non-limiting examples constituting statutory subject matter, but does not
expressly preclude the term "computer readable storage medium" from
including non-statutory subject matter, such as signals per se. One of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disputed term does not
preclude non-statutory subject matter. See id. As the Examiner correctly
3 See also U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of
Computer-Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010)
("The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer
readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such
variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and
transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary
meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is
silent.").
6
Appeal2015-000744
Application 13/243,928
found, the issue is not whether "computer readable storage medium" is
distinct from "computer readable signal medium," but rather whether
"computer readable storage medium," as recited in claim 15 and given its
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, encompasses
non-statutory as well as statutory subject matter. See Ans. 5. We agree with
the Examiner that it does.
Additionally, Appellants argue that in Ex parte Bash, Appeal
No. 2009-007202, 2010 WL 5199590 (BPAI 2010) (non-precedential), the
Board found the term "computer readable storage medium" to be statutory.
App. Br. 16 (citing Ex parte Bash, Appeal No. 2009-007202, 2010 WL
5199590 (BPAI 2010) (non-precedential)). As a preliminary matter, Ex
parte Bash has not been designated as precedential, and therefore, is not
binding on this panel. Moreover, as the Board found in Mewherter, the
specification at issue in Bash "contained express language that excluded
transitory media from the definition of storage medium." 2013 WL
4477509, at *6. Thus, we are constrained by the decision in Mewherter,
which held that "where ... 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." Id. at *7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-5, 9-12, and 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Moll
Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite "generating, from the symbolic
matrix and the data model, a MIP matrix." Appellants argue that Moll fails
to disclose generating a MIP matrix from a mathematical model because the
7
Appeal2015-000744
Application 13/243,928
mathematical model in Moll is not distinct from the MIP. App. Br. 18-20;
Reply Br. 4. If the mathematical model is not distinct from the MIP,
Appellants contend that the mathematical model cannot generate the MIP
matrix because the model cannot generate itself. App. Br. 18-20; Reply
Br. 4.
We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive. The Examiner finds
that Moll discloses a mathematical model that defines relationships between
entities within a MIP. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Moll i-f 45); Ans. 8. The
Examiner also finds that Moll discloses the use of data models to generate
mathematical models. Ans. 9 (citing Moll i-f 40). Additionally, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, that even though the mathematical model of
Moll is part of a MIP, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably
understand that the model is a constituent part that serves as a distinct means
to generate the MIP and its resulting matrix. Ans. 17-18. Thus, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument that the mathematical model must be
distinct from the MIP in order to generate the MIP matrix because Moll's
model serves as a distinct means to generate the MIP matrix.
Claim 1 additionally recites "programmatically storing, in a symbolic
matrix structure, at least one constraint." Appellants argue that the
Examiner has misinterpreted Moll's disclosure of constraints in a MIP
matrix to teach a symbolic matrix, because the mere inclusion of constraints
within a matrix does not constitute a symbolic matrix. App. Br. 21-23;
Reply Br. 5-7. Additionally, Appellants contend that because the
constraints are not stored prior to generating the MIP matrix, the constraints
cannot be used to generate the MIP matrix. App. Br. 21-23; Reply Br. 5-7.
8
Appeal2015-000744
Application 13/243,928
We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive. The Examiner finds
that the Specification describes a symbolic matrix as expressing constraints
within a table or matrix. Ans. 11 (citing Spec. i-f 53). The Examiner further
finds Moll's constraint-containing tables disclose the claimed symbolic
matrix because Moll's tables express constraints in a table, just as in the
Specification. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Moll i-f 81 ); Ans. 11 (citing Spec. i-f 53).
As discussed above, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that even though the
constraint-containing table of Moll is part of a MIP, one of ordinary skill in
the art would reasonably understand that the table is a constituent part that
serves as distinct means to generate the MIP and its resulting matrix. Ans.
18. Thus, we do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because they fail
to explain sufficiently why a constraint-containing table that is used to
generate the MIP matrix does not disclose the claimed symbolic matrix.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 9, and 15. Appellants argue that dependent claims 2-5, 10-12, and
16-18 are patentable for the same reasons as their respective independent
claims. See App. Br. 24. As such, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
these claims for the reasons discussed above in our analysis of claims 1, 9,
and 15.
Claims 6--8, 13, 14, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Moll and Bisschop
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 19 recite a symbolic matrix comprising
"a column for each of the variable definitions." Appellants argue that Moll
teaches a data model lacking variable definitions, rather than a symbolic
matrix, and, therefore, Moll fails to teach a symbolic matrix containing a
9
Appeal2015-000744
Application 13/243,928
column for each of the variable definitions. App. Br. 26 (citing Moll iii! 71-
74, Fig. 1).
The Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Moll illustrates a data model that
includes tables containing resource IDs. Final Act. 16-1 7 (citing Moll Fig.
1, iii! 71-74, 76-80). The Examiner further finds that the tables of Moll
include columns and that the resource IDs are variable definitions. Id. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Moll's table
includes columns, and that Moll's "resource ID[s] may be []unique
identifier[s]" that define the resource (variable). See Moll if 71. Thus, we
do not find persuasive Appellants' argument of Examiner error.
Additionally, dependent claims 6, 13, and 19 recite that the symbolic
matrix comprises "a row containing an expression for each constraint."
Appellants argue that the limitation "a row containing an expression for each
constraint" requires the row to contain the actual constraint. App. Br. 27.
We disagree with Appellants because Appellants' argument is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claims 6, 13, and 19 recite a
row containing "an expression" for each constraint, not that the row must
contain the actual constraint. Thus, we do not find Appellants' argument
that a row must contain the actual constraint persuasive.
Appellants also argue that instead of teaching "a row containing an
expression for each constraint," Moll's tables include rows that only
reference constraint names. App. Br. 27; Reply Br. 7. We disagree with
Appellants.
The Examiner finds that the rows in Bisschop contain the constraint.
Final Act. 19 (citing Bisschop 183, 204); Ans. 20 (citing Bisschop 206).
The Examiner further finds that a row in Bisschop contains an expression for
10
Appeal2015-000744
Application 13/243,928
the constraint because Bisschop teaches that a constraint is a numerical
relation containing an expression. Final Act. 19 (citing Bisschop 183); Ans.
20 (citing Bisschop 206). As such, we do not find Appellants' argument
persuasive because Bisschop discloses a row containing constraints that also
contains expressions for each constraint.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner's motivation to combine
Moll and Bisschop is a "mere conclusory statement" absent explanation as to
how the software procedures of Bisschop are incorporated into the teachings
of Moll. App. Br. 28 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 9.
We disagree with Appellants. The Examiner finds that Moll teaches
generating a mixed integer linear programming matrix containing
constraints. Final Act. 4--7 (citing Moll i-f 81, Fig. 1 ); Ans. 11. The
Examiner further finds that Bisschop teaches that it was known in the
programming art to propagate rows within a data matrix with constraints that
contain expressions for each constraint. Final Act. 19 (citing Bisschop 183,
204). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the constraints in Moll's matrix with
Bisschop's constraints and the constraints' expressions. Id. at 20. The
Examiner finds that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to make such a combination in order to achieve "the advantage of
incorporating the expressions into matrices for evaluations by matrix
operations, which easily lend themselves to parallel computation." Id. As
such, the Examiner provides an articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
11
Appeal2015-000744
Application 13/243,928
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims
6, 13, and 19. Appellants argue that claims 7, 8, 14, and 20, which depend
from claims 6, 13, and 19, respectively, are patentable for the same reasons
as the claims from which they depend. App. Br. 29. As such, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed above in
our analysis of claims 6, 13, and 19.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 9-12, and 15-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Moll.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6-8, 13, 14, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moll and Bisschop.
DECISION
To summarize, the rejections of claims 1-20 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
12