Ex Parte BurbeckDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 14, 201310859283 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEPHEN LEE BURBECK ___________ Appeal 2010-008102 Application 10/859,283 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, HUNG H. BUI, and GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008102 Application 10/859,283 2 This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non-final rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 10-27. Claims 2, 8, 9, and 28 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to a data sharing system in a peer-to-peer computer network for sharing ontology information. The system allows clients in the network to access files and ontology information from others in the peer-to-peer network. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitation in italics: 1. A peer-to-peer file sharing system that is implemented by a plurality of clients within a network, wherein each client includes: a file sharing system that allows each client to directly access files stored on a computer of at least one other client in the network; and an ontology sharing system that allows each client to access current and historical ontology information from other clients in the network, wherein the ontology information includes a directory structure identifying where a located file resides on a client computer; wherein the ontology sharing system includes a system for reorganizing the directory structure, and wherein the ontology sharing system includes a system for promulgating proposed directory structures to other clients in the network. 1 Real Party in Interest is International Business Machines Corp. Appeal 2010-008102 Application 10/859,283 3 Claims 1, 3-7, and 10-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuno (U.S. Patent No. 7,117,201 B2; Oct. 3, 2006), Davies (John Davies et al., OntoShare – An Ontology-based Knowledge Sharing System for Virtual Communities of Practice, J. UNIVERSAL COMPUTER SCI. vol. 10(3):262-283 (2004)), and OWL (Michael K. Smith et al., “Web Ontology Language (OWL) Guide Version 1.0” (2003), http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-guide-20030210/ ). ANALYSIS We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 5-7) that the combination of Kuno, Davies, and OWL would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “an ontology sharing system that allows each client to access current and historical ontology information from other clients in the network.” The Examiner found that the “OntoShare” of Davies corresponds to the limitation “an ontology sharing system that allows each client to access current and historical ontology information from other clients in the network.” (Ans. 5, 22-23; Davies, § 2.) Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kuno, Davies, and OWL teaches “an ontology sharing system that allows each client to access current and historical ontology information from other clients in the network.” Appellant’s Specification explains that an ontology information exporting system 36 packages path information. (Spec. 10:12- 16.) Path information is defined as “any information that could be of use, e.g., it may include a metadata file describing in more detail the path’s role Appeal 2010-008102 Application 10/859,283 4 in the ontology.” (Spec. 10:16-18.) Appellant’s Specification further explains that: In one illustrative embodiment, ontology information received when a file is initially retrieved can be cached with the file. The cached information can then be passed along to requesters of the file as additional ontology information. This acknowledges that the present ontology may not be the same as that of the original provider of the file. Thus, a history of the ontologies is maintained. This historical information could speed the flow of ontological information since, in the process of retrieving one file, the user obtains perhaps many ontological paths. (Spec. 13:5-12.) Accordingly, we interpret “ontology information” as including metadata and cached information passed along with requested files and all directory paths in which the file was found. Davies relates to “[a]n ontology-based knowledge sharing system OntoShare” (Abstract), which contains an ontology that “specifies a hierarchy of concepts (ontology classes) to which users can assign information. In this process, important metadata is extracted and associated with the community information resource using RDF annotations.” (§ 1.) OntoShare has the capability to summarize and extract key words from WWW pages and other sources of information shared by a user and it then shares this information with other users in the community of practice whose profiles predict interest in the information. (§ 2.) Moreover, OntoShare is used to store, retrieve, summarize and inform other users about information considered in some sense valuable by an OntoShare user. (§ 2.) Similar to Appellant’s “ontology information,” Davies teaches extracting sources of information shared by a user and then sharing this information with other users in the network. Metadata and cached Appeal 2010-008102 Application 10/859,283 5 information about a file are examples of “other sources of information” extracted and shared by OntoShare. Based on the above claim construction, the claim term “ontology information” is broad enough to encompass the “other sources of information” specified in Davies. First, Appellant contends Davies fails to teach or suggest sharing ontology information. (Br. 5.) In particular, Appellant argues that “the information shared in Davies is organized into ‘ontological classes’” and “the information shared in Davies is not this ontological structure.” (Br. 6.) Appellant further argues: the sharing of knowledge does not clearly indicate access to current and historical ontology information. Simply sharing knowledge in general does not automatically imply access to both current and historical information or to ontology information. Further, as mentioned above, the information shared in Davies is not even ontology information. (Br. 6.) However, as discussed previously, when the claim term “ontology sharing system” is properly construed, Davies teaches the claim limitation “an ontology sharing system that allows each client to access current and historical ontology information from other clients in the network.” Furthermore, “ontology information” is not limited to only directory structures or file path names, but can include miscellaneous information such as community names, etc. or metadata. (Spec. 10:7-9.) Second, Appellant argues “[a]s best understood by Appellant, the Examiner appears to interpret the property information disclosed by OWL to allegedly teach or suggest the current and historical ontology information of claim 1.” (Br. 6.) However, the Examiner also cited Davies for teaching the limitation “an ontology sharing system that allows each client to access Appeal 2010-008102 Application 10/859,283 6 current and historical ontology information from other clients in the network.” (Ans. 5, 22-23; Davies, § 2.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kuno, Davies, and OWL teaches the limitation “an ontology sharing system that allows each client to access current and historical ontology information from other clients in the network.” We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument (Br. 7) that the combination of Kuno, Davies, and OWL would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “wherein the ontology sharing system includes a system for promulgating proposed directory structures to other clients in the network.” The Examiner found that the “OntoShare” of Davies, which is used to store information and share such information with other users, corresponds to the limitation “wherein the ontology sharing system includes a system for promulgating proposed directory structures to other clients in the network.” (Ans. 5-6, 23; Davies, § 2.) We agree with the Examiner. Davies explains that “OntoShare is used to store, retrieve, summarize, and inform other users about information considered in some sense valuable.” (§ 2). Therefore, such information of OntoShare corresponds to the claimed “directory structures.” Davies further explains that “this information with other users in the community of practice.” Accordingly, Davies teaches the claim limitation “wherein the ontology sharing system includes a system for promulgating proposed directory structures to other clients in the network.” Appellant argues that “the sharing of information with other users in Davies is not the same as the ‘system for promulgating proposed directory Appeal 2010-008102 Application 10/859,283 7 structures to other clients in the network’” because “[t]he information shared in Davies is information that a user thinks there is sufficient interest in to share with other people.” (Br. 7.) Contrary to Appellant’s argument, as discussed previously, the information being shared by the OntoShare in Davies is key words extracted from the WWW pages, as well as other sources of information such as metadata, cached information, and directory structures. Appellant’s conclusory statements fail to distinguish the information shared in Davies from the “system for promulgating proposed directory structures to other clients in the network.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kuno, Davies, and OWL teaches the limitation “wherein the ontology sharing system includes a system for promulgating proposed directory structures to other clients in the network.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3-7 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 19 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 19, as well as claims 11-18 and 20-27, which depend from claims 10 and 19, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Appeal 2010-008102 Application 10/859,283 8 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-7, and 10-27 is 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation