Ex Parte Biron et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2016

12726596 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121726,596 03/18/2010 Ran BIRON
56436 7590 02/24/2016
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.
82260107 1585
EXAMINER
SMITH, BRANNON W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2016 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 RAN BIRON, URI BEN-DOR,
and V ADIM ARSHA VSKY
Appeal2014-002674
Application 12/726,596
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-002674
Application 12/726,596
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-15 and 17-20. Claim 16 was canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "[ s ]ystems, methods, and other
embodiments associated with graph transformation." (Abstract.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-readable medium storing computer-executable
instructions that when executed by a computer cause the
computer to perform a method, the method comprising:
transforming a base graph into a folded graph as a
function of a folding query, where the folding query describes
an edge to add to the folded graph when a pre-specified sub-
graph is detected in the base graph; and
providing the folded graph.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Maheshwari US 2010/0082701 Al Apr. 1, 2010
Mary Fernandez, Lucian Popa, and Dan Suciu, A Structure-Based
Approach to Querying Semi-Structured Data, Database Programming
Languages, Sixth International Workshop 136-59 (1997)
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the
real party in interest.
2
Appeal2014-002674
Application 12/726,596
THE REJECTIONS2
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 15, and 17-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fernandez. (Final Act. 6.)
2. Claims 4, 7, and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Fernandez and Maheshwari. (Final Act. 11, 13.)
3. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph, because they depend from canceled claim 16. (Final Act. 5.)
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that the rejections were improper for the following
reasons:
1. Fernandez does not disclose "transforming a base graph into a
folded graph as a function of a folding query, where the folding query
describes an edge to add to the folded graph when a pre-specified sub-graph
is detected in the base graph," as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 14--16.)
2. Fernandez does not disclose "generating the folding query
based on a folding definition that describes a desired hierarchy of an output
graph," as recited in claim 5. (App. Br. 16-17.)
3. Fernandez does not disclose that "generating the folding query
comprises: creating nodes in the folding query for placeholder nodes found
while traversing a definition tree in the folding definition," as recited in
claim 6. (App. Br. 17-18.)
2 A rejection of claims 5, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, (see Final Act. 3-5) is indicated by the Examiner to have been
withdrawn (see Ans. 2) and therefore is not before us.
3
Appeal2014-002674
Application 12/726,596
4. Fernandez does not disclose "place[ing] a directed edge from a
first node in the folded sub-graph to a second node in the folded sub-graph,
where the directed edge is placed in response to detecting an edge
connecting a third node in the pre-specified sub-graph and a fourth node in
the prespecified sub-graph," as recited in claim 20. (App. Br. 18-19.)
5. The combination of F emandez and Maheshwari does not teach
or suggest "where the stored graph resides in a configuration management
database" and "where nodes in the stored graph represent elements of an
information technology (IT) infrastructure, and where edges in the graph
represent relationships between the elements of the IT infrastructure," as
recited in claim 4. (App. Br. 20-21.)
6. The combination of Fernandez and Maheshwari does not teach
or suggest "receiving the base query and the folding definition from a client,
where the folded graph is provided to the client, and where the client uses
the folded graph to generate the output graph based, at least in part, on the
folding definition," as recited in claim 7. (App. Br. 21-22.)
7. The combination of F emandez and Maheshwari does not teach
or suggest "a folding logic that describes an edge to add to the folded graph
when a pre-specified sub-graph is detected in the base graph to transform the
sub-graph of the directed graph into a folded sub-graph based on information
describing a desired display output," as recited in claim 12. (App. Br. 22-
24.)
4
Appeal2014-002674
Application 12/726,596
ANALYSIS
We address Appellants' arguments below, organized by the claims to
which they apply.
Claims 1-3, 15, and 19
"transforming a base graph into a folded graph as a
function of a folding query, where the folding query describes
an edge to add to the folded graph when a pre-specified
sub-graph is detected in the base graph"
For claim 1, Appellants argue that "rather than adding an edge,
Fernandez states that 'edges in the source graph are not a part of the result
and are eliminated from the result,'" that "Fernandez discusses nothing
about a folding query," that Fernandez does not "discuss anything about
transforming a base graph into a folded graph as a function a function of the
folding query," and that Fernandez does not "disclose that an edge is added
when a pre-specified sub-graph is detected." (App. Br. 15-16.) The
Examiner responds as follows:
Fernandez illustrates an initial graph in Figure 1. A query QI
returns a graph result ("the query returns the graph in Figure
2(a)") (ibid). Figure 2(a) reflects a folded graph, as discussed
earlier. The query searches for and causes the detection of a pre-
specified subgraph: an edge y with a label that contains the string
"Security." The query causes the return of the surrounding struc-
ture, the folded graph of Figure 2(a).
(Ans. 6.)
We agree with the Examiner's analysis. Appellants' arguments are
premised on unduly narrow constructions of claim terms, including "folding
query," "folded graph," and "sub-graph." The Specification does not define
these terms, and there is no record evidence that they have any particular
narrow meaning in the art. Giving these terms their broadest reasonable
5
Appeal2014-002674
Application 12/726,596
construction, 3 we agree with the Examiner that F emandez teaches a base
graph (e.g., as shown in Figure 1) that is transformed into a folded graph
(e.g., as shown in Figure 2(a)) as a function of a folding query (e.g., "Query
Q 1 "). The query describes adding an edge to the folded graph when a pre-
specified sub-graph is detected in the base graph in that, for example, an
edge is added when the sub-graph "Security" is detected. (See Fernandez§
2.) "Sub-graph" is reasonably construed to cover a single edge because an
edge is a portion of a base graph and the specification does not impose a
different meaning. And we find Appellants' argument that "F emandez
discloses removing edges ... rather than adding an edge when a pre-
specified sub-graph is detected" (App. Br. 16) unpersuasive because, even if
edges are "removed," the folded graph (e.g., as shown in Figure 2(a)) is
nevertheless built by adding edges in response to the query.
We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejections of claims 2, 3, 15, and 19, which are not argued separately.
Claim 4
"where the stored graph resides in a configuration management database"
and "where nodes in the stored graph represent elements of an information
technology (IT) infrastructure, and where edges in the graph represent
relationships between the elements of the IT infrastructure"
For dependent claim 4, Appellants additionally argue that Maheshwari
"does not disclose 'where nodes in the stored graph represent elements of an
information technology (IT) infrastructure, and where edges in the graph
represent relationships between the elements of the IT infrastructure' as
3 See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent
examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow.").
6
Appeal2014-002674
Application 12/726,596
recited by claim 4" because "Maheshwari merely discloses 'configuration
items [which] may be stored in CMDB. '" (App. Br. 21.) In response, the
Examiner states that "Maheshwari discloses a graph of IT elements, see
Figure 4" and "[p]articularly, a router is displayed ... depicted as connected
to various servers by edges in the graph," such that "Maheshwari teaches
that a CMDB can help an organization's IT department identify the content
and relationship of various configuration items." (Ans. 9-10.)
We agree with the Examiner's factual findings and the conclusion that
it would have been obvious one of skill in the art to use a graph as used in
Maheshwari, in a configuration management database, where nodes
represent elements of an information technology (IT) infrastructure, and
where edges represent relationships between the elements of the IT
infrastructure. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5-11
"generating the folding query based on a folding definition that
describes a desired hierarchy of an output graph "
For claim 5, Appellants argue that "[t]he Examiner fails to specifically
point out how the query definition describes a desired hierarchy" and that
"[ w ]hile the query definition in Fernandez describes an edge, it does not
describe a desired hierarchy of an output graph as alleged by the Examiner."
(App. Br. 17.) The Examiner responds by finding that "[a]s depicted in
Figure 2(a), the structure around the edge labeled 'Security' is returned" and
that "[t]his structure is a hierarchy, as it depicts a tree-like graph with the
Security edge being placed below a Project edge, and a Networks and
Security Edge being placed below the DName edge." (Ans. 6.)
We agree with the Appellants, as we find no teaching in Fernandez of
generating a query based on a definition that describes a desired hierarchy of
7
Appeal2014-002674
Application 12/726,596
an output graph. The queries identified by the Examiner (e.g., "Security")
do not describe a desired hierarchy, and the fact that the result may include a
hierarchy does not mean that the "folding query [is] based on a folding
definition that describes a desired hierarchy," as claimed.
We accordingly find that the Examiner has not shown claim 5 to be
anticipated by Fernandez, do not sustain the rejection of claim 5 and, for the
same reason, do not sustain the rejections of claims 6-11, all of which
depend directly or indirectly from claim 5. We do not reach Appellants'
additional arguments concerning claims 6-11.
Claims 12-14
"receiving the base query and the folding definition from
a client, where the folded graph is provided to the client, and where the
client uses the folded graph to generate the output graph based,
at least in part, on the folding definition"
For claim 12, Appellants first argue that "[a]lthough Fernandez
discloses 'UnQL query, which searches for an edge' ... Fernandez does not
disclose 'a folding logic that describes an edge to add to the folded graph
when a pre-specified sub-graph is detected in the base graph."' (App. Br.
23.) We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 11) that this limitation is met as
described in connection with claim 1: Fernandez teaches a base graph (e.g.,
as shown in Figure 1) that is transformed into a folded graph (e.g., as shown
in Figure 2(a)) as a function of a folding query (e.g., "Query QI"), where the
query describes adding an edge to the folded graph when a pre-specified
sub-graph is detected in the base graph in that an edge is added when the
sub-graph "Security" is detected. (See Fernandez§ 2.)
Appellants next argue that "[t]he Examiner appears to overlook that
claim 12 recites a directed graph," that "[t]he cited section of Fernandez
8
Appeal2014-002674
Application 12/726,596
does not appear to be related to a directed graph," and that "[a]lthough in a
different section Fernandez appears to disclose a directed graph, it does not
appear to be related to the section cited by the Examiner." (App. Br. 23.)
We agree with the Examiner's findings that "a directed edge of a graph is
denoted with an arrow between vertices in the graph," that "Fernandez
clearly discloses such graphs with directed edges in, for example, Figure
lO(a) and (b)," and that Sections 2 and 3 are not unrelated, because Section 3
is a review of the exemplar data model, graph schemas, and query language
presented in Section 2. (See Ans. 11-12.)
Finally, Appellants argue that in Fernandez "an edge is added to
transform the sub-graph, but the edge is not the sub-graph itself." (App. Br.
24.) As explained above, we find that a single edge is covered by the
broadest reasonable construction of "sub-graph."
For these reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 12 and, as claims
13 and 14 were not argued separately, we affirm the rejections of those
claims as well.
Claims 17 and 18
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected as being anticipated by Fernandez
(Final Act. 5, 9-10) and as being in improper form because they depend
from canceled claim 16 (Final Act. 5). Appellants ask that we "hold the
rejection of claims 1 7 and 18 in abeyance pending the outcome of the
Appeal" (App. Br. 12) and do not otherwise argue patentability of these
claims (see App. Br. 14--19). We decline the request for abeyance and
summarily sustain the rejections of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(b) and 112, fourth paragraph. See MPEP § 1205.02 (8th ed., Rev. 9,
Aug. 2012) ("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed
9
Appeal2014-002674
Application 12/726,596
in the appellant's briet: that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained
by the Board.").
Claim 20
For claim 20, Appellants argue that Fernandez does not show
"plac[ing] a directed edge from a first node in the folded sub-graph to a
second node in the folded sub-graph, where the directed edge is placed in
response to detecting an edge connecting a third node in the pre-specified
sub-graph and a fourth node in the prespecified sub-graph." (App. Br. 18-
19.) As explained in connection with claim 12, we agree with the Examiner
that Fernandez teaches the use of a directed graph, and we accordingly
sustain the rejection of claim 20.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 15, and 17-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fernandez.
2. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5, 6, and 8-11 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fernandez.
3. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Fernandez and Maheshwari.
4. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4 and 12-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fernandez and Maheshwari.
5. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 7 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph.
10
Appeal2014-002674
Application 12/726,596
DECISION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1--4,
12-15, and 17-20, and reverse the rejections of claims 5-11.
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
11