Ex Parte Byron et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

13838130 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/838, 130 03/15/2013
75916 7590 12/04/2018
IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF)
c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC
10701 Corporate Dr., Suite 230
Stafford, TX 77477
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Donna Karen Byron
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.
AUS920120365US 1 2065
EXAMINER
GOLDEN, STEVE PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2018 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):
dpandya@garglaw.com
uspto@garglaw.com
garglaw@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONNA KAREN BYRON, ALEXANDER
PIKOVSKY, and MATTHEW B. SANCHEZ
Appeal 2018-003 818
Application 13/838, 130
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 11-25. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 11, 12, 15-17, 23, and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Challenger (US 2004/0117739 Al; June
17, 2004) and Datig (US 2007/0219933 Al; Sept. 20, 2007). Final Act. 2-8.
Claims 13, 14, 18-22, and 25 are rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Challenger, Datig, and De Vocht (US
2011/0301941 Al; Dec. 8, 2011). Final Act. 8-13.
We reverse.
Appeal 2018-003 818
Application 13/838, 130
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to "adapting tabular data
for narration." Spec. ,r 1. "Information presented as tabular data often relates
to the content of the remainder of the document and aids in understanding
the overall content of the document." Id. at ,r 22. One embodiment
translates a table into narrative statements that describe the nature and
significance of the tabular data along with values of the tabular data, and
may include natural language sentences exposing the inter-relationships
among the values of descriptive cells in the table. Id. at ,r 24, 27-28. Claim
11 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the key disputed limitation
emphasized:
11. A computer usable program product comprising a
computer usable storage device including computer usable code
for adapting tabular data for narration, the computer usable
code comprising:
computer usable code for identifying, in a first tabular
portion of a document, a set of categories used to organize data;
computer usable code for analyzing a structure of the
categories, wherein the set of categories is arranged in a
hierarchy in the first tabular portion;
computer usable code for determining, by traversing the
hierarchy, linguistic dependencies between a plurality of
categories according to the hierarchy;
computer usable code for drawing an inference of
inclusion between a plurality of clauses corresponding to a
plurality of categories in the hierarchy, the inference
determining that one clause in the plurality of clauses includes
another clause in the plurality of clauses according to a natural
language-dependent grammatical rule;
computer usable code for connecting the plurality of
clauses corresponding to the plurality of categories in the
hierarchy, the connecting forming a narrative statement
2
Appeal 2018-003 818
Application 13/838, 130
according to linguistic dependencies between the plurality of
clauses;
computer usable code for drawing an inference about
data in a first cell in the first tabular portion based on a position
of the first cell in the structure; and
computer usable code for transforming the first tabular
portion of the document into a first narrative form using the
inference, wherein the first narrative form uses the narrative
statement.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 11, 12, 15-17, 23, AND 24 OVER
CHALLENGER AND DATIG
Contentions
The Examiner finds Challenger and Datig teach all limitations of
claim 11. Final Act. 2--4. The Examiner finds Challenger teaches all
limitations of claim 11 except for the key disputed limitation. Final Act. 2--4.
The Examiner finds Datig teaches the key disputed limitation:
Datig teaches computer usable code for drawing an
inference of inclusion between a plurality of clauses
corresponding to a plurality of categories in the hierarchy,
the inference determining that one clause in the plurality of
clauses includes another clause in the plurality of clauses
according to a natural language-dependent grammatical
rule. (0014, "a thinking machine that operates according to a
3
Appeal 2018-003 818
Application 13/838, 130
universal grammar... understand the pronoun I, in connection
with any other meaningful expressions of language" and 0051,
"thinking database," whereby the traditional structures defined
by database theory, such as classes, fields, data structures,
records, primary and secondary keys, tables, table relationships,
queries, and reports, are fundamentally expressed through the
KP paradigm's prominent thoughts and epistemic network
structures" and 0064, "KP understands linguistic complexities
and the meaning of language" and 0366).
Final Act. 4. The Examiner reasons
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to have modified the teachings of Challenger to
incorporate the teachings of Datig. Doing so would allow
relationships between categories and fields in a table to be
connected using a set of grammatical rules according to
Natural Language Processing techniques.
Final Act. 4.
Among other arguments, Appellants present the following principal
argument relating to the Examiner's finding that Datig teaches the key
disputed limitation:
Absolutely nothing in the alleged teaching comes even
close to the remotest meaning of an "inference of inclusion" as
in claim 11. The text of the rejection-which quotes the
teaching of Datig-is presented [ on page 4 of the Final Action].
There is no inference of inclusion of any kind that can be
reasonably deduced from this teaching, let alone deducing that
"the inference determine[es] that one clause in the plurality
of clauses includes another clause in the plurality of
clauses" in the manner of claim 11. Datig is merely teaching
some universal grammar, traditional structures, database theory,
table relationships, prominent thoughts, network structures, and
"meaning of language"----each of which is undefined in Datig 's
disclosure, extremely broad omnibus term, which could mean
anything to anyone based on personal interpretations without
being bound by any context. Datig does not layout these
indiscriminate terms in a context that is even remotely similar
4
Appeal 2018-003 818
Application 13/838, 130
to the context of the claim, such that it would be reasonable to
understand these terms or their including section as teaching or
suggesting "the inference determine[es] that one clause in
the plurality of clauses includes another clause in the
plurality of clauses" in the manner of claim 11.
Appeal Br. 12-13.
In response, the Examiner finds Challenger teaches "drawing an
inference of inclusion between a plurality of clauses corresponding to a
plurality of categories in the hierarchy." Ans. 6-7 ("The table shows the
sport 'Cycling Track' followed by the 'Country' and the medal type
(category) arranged in a hierarchy; Gold is first, followed by Silver, and
finally Bronze.").
In response, the Examiner further finds Datig teaches "the inference
determining that one clause in the plurality of clauses includes another
clause in the plurality of clauses according to a natural language-dependent
grammatical rule." Ans. 7 ("The examiner points to Datig 0363, that
describes understanding a languages syntax (rules) and grammar. The
examiner points to O 1 71, semantic categories can construct language and
0788, discloses phrases and clauses can be translated. The examiner
interprets as 'drawing an inference of inclusion between a plurality of
clauses corresponding to a plurality of categories'.").
In the Reply Brief, Appellants present the following principal
argument relating to Datig and the key disputed limitation:
Examiner then relies only on Datig to assert that Datig
"describes understanding a languages syntax (rules) and
grammar," and that "phrases and clauses can be translated."
Examiner uses these teachings to again reach an improper
conclusion, "The examiner interprets as "drawing an inference
of inclusion between a plurality of clauses corresponding to a
plurality of categories"," (EA, p. 7) which is neither reasonable
5
Appeal 2018-003 818
Application 13/838, 130
nor supported by Datig. To construe a simple teaching of
understanding language syntax and phrase/ clause translation as
the precisely and specifically recited claim feature "drawing an
inference of inclusion between a plurality of clauses
corresponding to a plurality of categories" is also evidence of
improper hindsight into Appellants' claim and specification and
beyond the knowledge available to those of ordinary skill in the
art, where the hindsight is used to reconstruct the teachings of
the combination into the claimed feature. Id, In re McLaughlin.
Reply Br. 3.
Our Review
Appellants' arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding
Challenger and Datig teach the key disputed limitation.
Challenger discloses a plurality of categories ( Gold, Silver, Bronze).
Challenger Fig. 1. In some sense, these categories may describe a plurality
of categories in a hierarchy (Gold, Silver, Bronze). Ans. 6-7. However, we
agree with Appellants that Datig' s disclosures do not further suggest "the
inference determining that one clause in the plurality of clauses includes
another clause in the plurality of clauses according to a natural language-
dependent grammatical rule" as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12-13;
see also Reply Br. 3 and Spec. ,r 59 ( emphasis added) ( an embodiment
transforming table 302 to a narrative form produces the following
statement(s) for cell 324 - 'Taxes are a part of revenues for Jefferson
County. The general type of government fund types has sixty one thousand
and fifty dollars in revenues from taxes."').
Turning to Datig, for example, Datig discloses "a thinking machine
that operates according to a universal grammar ... that enables [it] to
understand the pronoun I, in connection with any other meaningful
expressions of language." Datig ,r 14. Datig discloses "a 'thinking database,'
6
Appeal 2018-003 818
Application 13/838, 130
whereby the traditional structures defined by database theory, such as
classes, fields, data structures, records, primary and secondary keys, tables,
table relationships, queries, and reports, are fundamentally expressed
through the KP (knowledge processor) paradigm's prominent thoughts and
epistemic network structures." Datig ,r 51. Datig discloses "KP understands
linguistic complexities and the meaning of language." Datig ,r 64. Datig
discloses "Database technology similarly stores even terabytes of data, but
cannot understand a solitary word of natural language." Datig ,r 366; see
also Datig ,r 367 ("We are striving here to attain a machine that exhibits true
(human) intelligence concerning abstract ideas, and ultimately emotion, not
only the ability to draw inferences about entities and their relationships.").
Even to the extent Datig suggests the possibility of drawing inferences
about entities and their relationships, we do not readily see how the
disclosures in Datig would have been applicable to the categories of Gold,
Silver, and Bronze in Challenger to further suggest "the inference
determining that one clause in the plurality of clauses includes another
clause in the plurality of clauses according to a natural language-dependent
grammatical rule" as recited in claim 1. In particular, we do not see how one
clause in the clauses corresponding to Gold, Silver, and Bronze would
include another clause in the clauses corresponding to Gold, Silver, and
Bronze.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11.
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 12 and 15-17,
which depend from claim 11.
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
23, which also recites the key disputed limitation, for the same reasons as for
7
Appeal 2018-003 818
Application 13/838, 130
claim 11. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24, which
depends from claim 23.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 13, 14, 18-22, AND 25 OVER
CHALLENGER, DATIG, AND DE VOCHT
Contentions
The Examiner does not find De Vocht cures the deficiency of
Challenger and Datig. See Final Act. 8-13.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 13,
14, 18-22, and 25.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-25 is reversed.
REVERSED
8