Ex Parte Castellanos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2017

13454420 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 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.
13/454,420 04/24/2012 Maria Guadalupe Castellanos 82965495 3378
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, DUY KHUONG THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/12/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@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 MARIA GUADALUPE CASTELLANOS, CORNELIO INIGO,
CARLOS ALBERTO CEJA LIMON, MARIA GUADALUP PAZ,
and UMESHWAR DAYAL
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—11 and 13—18. Claim 12 is cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention on appeal relates to “A system,
and a corresponding method, that allow a programmer to create and edit a
data-flow employing multiple execution engines . . . (Abstract).
Representative Claim
15. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing
instructions that upon execution cause at least one computer to:
prompt a user to provide a data-flow including data stores, operators,
and connections between the data stores and the operators by adding nodes
representing the data stores and the operators to a graphical user interface
(GUI) and by adding arcs between the nodes representing connections
between the corresponding data stores and operators to the GUI;
receive user selection of a first group of the nodes in the GUI which
represent the data stores and the operators executable by a first execution
engine of a plurality of execution engines;
group the selected first group of the nodes executable by the first
execution engine into a first fragment;
[L] receive, in the GUI, user identification of the first execution
engine for the first group of the nodes selected in the GUI;
receive user selection of a second group of the nodes in the GUI
which represent the data stores and the operators executable by a second
execution engine of the plurality of execution engines;
group the selected second group of the nodes executable by the
second execution engine into a second fragment;
receive, in the GUI, user identification of the second execution
engine to associate with the second group of nodes selected in the GUI;
represent each of the first and second fragments by a first code
language; and
2
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
independently translate the first code language of each of the first and
second fragments into an execution code language instructing the
corresponding execution engine.
(Contested limitation L emphasized).
Rejections
A. Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of
Jin (US 2007/0244876 Al, Oct. 18, 2007) (hereinafter “Jin”), and
Liao (US 2008/0168082 Al, July 10, 2008) (hereinafter “Liao”).
B. Claims 1—11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and
suggestions of Jin, Ghoneimy et al. (US 2004/0078373 Al, Apr. 22,
2004) (hereinafter “Ghoneimy”), and Liao.
Grouping of Claims
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we address rejection A of claims
15 and 18 separately, infra. We decide the appeal of rejection B of claims
1—7 on the basis of representative claim 1; we decide the appeal of rejection
B of claims 8—11, 13, and 14 on the basis of representative claim 8. We
address rejection B of claims 16 and 17 separately, infra. To the extent
Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular
claims or issues, such arguments are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and any evidence
presented. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we adopt as our
3
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
own: (1) the findings and legal conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the findings, legal
conclusions, and explanations set forth in the Answer in response to
Appellants’ arguments. (Ans. 48—58). However, we highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection A of Independent Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Limitation L
Appellants do not contest the combinability of the references.
However, Appellants “submit[] that the Examiner has erred in asserting that
Liao purportedly discloses the subject matter in the bolded clauses of claim
15” (App. Br. 9, referring to App. Br. 6—7). However, we note Appellants
only substantively contest limitation L of independent claim 15: “receive, in
the GUI, user identification of the first execution engine for the first group
of the nodes selected in the GUI; . . . .”1
Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err in finding the
cited combination of Jin and Liao would have taught or suggested contested
limitation L (“receive, in the GUI, user identification of the first execution
engine for the first group of the nodes selected in the GUFj, within the
meaning of independent claim 15, under a broad but reasonable
1 See In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.”
4
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
interpretation? 2 (Emphasis added).
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds Liao teaches or suggests
limitation L of claim 15, as follows:
[R] eceivfing], in the GUI, user identification of the first
execution engine for the first group of the nodes selected in the
GUI (Liao, Fig. 1 and paragraph [0021], Data integration
typically begins with a user describing a data flow of an
ETL process using a UI (user interface) tool. A data flow
represents a logical transformation and flow of data. A
code generation system generates code from the data flow,
which generated code is then sent to the database server 102 for
execution. Paragraph [0026]. Liao, Fig. 4, component 404 and
paragraph [0029], The method 400 begins with a data
processing system (e.g., data processing system 200) receiving
user input inserting a first operator (or operation)
associated with a first type of runtime engine into a data
flow (e.g., a data flow 212) (step 402). There are various
types of runtime engines that may be used to process ETL
operations—e.g., a relational database engine or a DataStage
ETL engine among others. In addition, there are many
different types of operators representing corresponding ETL
operations (such as structured query language operations and
ETL DataStage operations) that can be inserted by a user into a
data flow. Some operators associated with a relational database
2 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Regarding descriptions in the Specification
that are not definitions or clear and unambiguous disclaimers, our reviewing
“court has repeatedly ‘cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to
preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.’”
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1328 (Fed.
Cir. 2002)). Accord App. Br. 2 (“Note that the citation to passages in the
specification and drawings for each claim element does not imply that
limitations from the specification and drawings should be read into the
corresponding claim element.”).
5
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
engine include, for example, a table extract operator, a join
operator, a de-duplicate operator, a bulk load table operator, a
file target operator, and so on. Some operators associated with
a DataStage ETL engine include, for example, a file extract
operator, a filter operator, and so on.);
(Final Act. 9—10).
In the principal Brief (8—9) Appellants contend, inter alia:
The Examiner cited specifically to ^fl[ [0021 ] (referring to
Fig. 1), [0026], [0029], and Fig. 4, item 404 of Fiao as
purportedly disclosing the following feature of claim 15:
“receive, in the GUI, user identification of the first execution
engine for the first group of the nodes selected in the GUI.”
Office Action at 9-10. Paragraph [0021] of Fiao refers to “a
user describing a data flow of an ETF process (as shown in Fig.
1) using a UI (user interface) tool.” However, | [0026] and Fig.
1 do not provide any teaching or hint of receiving, in the GUI,
user identification of the first execution engine for the first
group of the nodes selected in the GUI, as selected according
to the received user selection of the first group of nodes in the
GUI.
(App. Br. 8—9) (emphasis added).
Paragraph [0026] of Fiao states that a user can drop a
data station operator into a data flow. Paragraph [0029] of Fiao
states that a user can insert a first operator associated with a
type of runtime engine into a data flow. Item 404 in Fig. 4 of
Fiao refers to a user input inserting a second operator into a
data flow. However, none of the foregoing passages provide
any teaching or hint at the following subject matter of claim 15:
“receive, in the GUI, user identification of the first execution
engine for the first group of the nodes selected in the GUI.”
What | [0029] of Fiao refers to is inserting an operator
associated with a specific type of runtime engine into the
data flow; however, there is no teaching or hint here of
receiving, in the GUI, user identification of the first execution
engine for the first group of the nodes selected in the GUI.
(App. Br. 9) (emphasis added).
6
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
In the “Response to Arguments” (Ans. 48-49), the Examiner
disagrees. To buttress the rejection, the Examiner additionally points to Liao
(1130, 34; Fig. 6). (Ans. 50-51). Regarding Liao’s Figure 6, the Examiner
finds:
[Fjirst section 602 which is “first group of nodes selected
in the GUI” and the first runtime engine (a relational database
engine) was selected for the first section 602 which means
“receive, in the GUI, user identification of the first execution
engine for the first group of the nodes selected in the GUI.”
(Ans. 51).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants further respond, inter alia:
As specifically stated by the Examiner:
(1) “The Office notes that in paragraph [0029] the user chooses
first operator (or operation) which has a first type of runtime
engine which means ‘user identification of the first execution
engine'
(2) “The first operator includes operator identifier and runtime
engine identifier.”
The Examiner has mischaracterized Liao by asserting, in
assertion (1), that the “first operator” of Liao “has a first type of
runtime engine.” Id. (emphasis added). What Liao actually
states is that “a first operator (or operation) [is] associated with
a first type of runtime engine.” Liao, 1 [0029] (emphasis
added). There is absolutely no support in Liao for the assertion
by the Examiner that an operator has a specific type of runtime
engine.
(Reply Br. 3).
Appellants urge:
“Rather, [in Liao] code produced from a data flow that includes
7
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
operators can be sent to a runtime engine for execution.” (Reply Br. 4).
Appellants contend, inter alia,
The Examiner has equated the addition of a node that
represents an operator with receiving user identification of a
first execution engine for the first group of the nodes selected in
the GUI. Such an interpretation of Liao is clearly incorrect, as
all Liao contemplates is the simple addition of an operator into
a data flow. It is not until the data flow is converted into code
that the code is then sent to a runtime engine for execution.
Liao, 1 [0025].
(Reply Br. 5).
Our reviewing court guides: “the question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 L.2d 804, 807—08
(Led. Cir. 1989), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); see also MPEP
§2123(1.).
Here, we find the obviousness inquiry regarding contested limitation
L turns upon the question of whether a user also identifies a first execution
engine, as required by the language of claim 15, by merely selecting a
particular group of associated nodes (e.g., operators) in a GUI (as taught by
Liao 126), given that Liao expressly teaches an association between at least
a first operator and a particular type of execution engine: see e.g., Liao 130
(“In one example, the first operator can be associated with a relational
database engine and the second operator can be associated with a DataStage
ETL engine.”). We note Block 404 of Liao’s figure 4 (as relied on by the
Examiner, Pinal Act. 4) expressly describes: “RECEIVE USER INPUT
INSERTING A SECOND OPERATOR ASSOCIATED WITH A
8
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
SECOND TYPE OF RUNTIME ENGINE INTO THE DATA FLOW.”
(Emphasis added).
As an issue of claim construction, we find Appellants have not
defined the claim 15 term “user identification” in the claim or the
Specification to preclude user identification according to engine type, or
“user identification of the first execution engine” indirectly by user selection
of an operator associated with an engine type, as found by the Examiner.
(Final Act. 10). Therefore, we find selection of an operator associated with
a type of engine (e.g., a relational database type engine or an ETL type
engine — Liao 134) would have taught or suggested a user identification of
a first execution engine, within the meaning of claim 15, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation.3
As further applicable to our discussion infra regarding contested
dependent claim 18, we find such indirect “user identification” of a type of
an execution engine (Liao 130) also teaches, or at least suggests, user
selection of a name for an execution engine, because we find a type of an
engine is also a name for an engine.
Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we
sustain rejection A of independent claim 15.
3 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
9
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
Rejection A of Dependent Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 18 further limits independent claim 15:
“18. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15,
wherein the receiving of the user identification of the first execution engine
comprises receiving user selection of one of a plurality of names of
execution engines presented in the GUI.” (Emphasis added).
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner finds:
In fig. 6 and paragraph [0034], Liao explains that “For example,
FIG. 6 illustrates an example logical operator graph 600
including a first section 602 and a second section 604. The first
section 602 includes operators 606-610 operable to process
data having a format compatible with a first type of
runtime engine (e.g., a relational database engine), and the
second section 604 includes operators 612-620 that are
operable to process data having a format compatible with a
second type of runtime engine (e.g., a data stage ETL
engine)” which means there are at least two different engine [s]
for the user to choose to assign to different section 602 and
section 604.
(Ans. 52).
Appellants note (App. Br. 10):
The rejection of claim 18 cited the same passages of Liao
as cited against claim 15. Office Action at 12-13. These cited
passages of Liao refer to a user describing a data flow of an
ETL process using a UI tool (Liao, 1 [0021]), using a data
station operator as a link between a first operator associated
with a first runtime engine and a second operator associated
with a second runtime engine (id., 1 [0026]), and providing a
logical operator graph that includes first and second sections
each including operators operable to process data having a
format compatible with respective types of runtime engines (id.,
1 [0034]).
10
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
Appellants contend (Id.):
None of these passages of Liao provide any teaching or
hint of “receiving user selection of one of a plurality of names
of execution engines presented in the GUI.” Liao provides no
mention of presenting names of execution engines in a GUI.
Even more fundamentally, Liao provides no teaching or hint of
user selection of one of the names of execution engines
presented in the GUI.
Jin does not remedy the deficiencies of Liao with respect
to the subject matter of claim 18, and thus, the asserted
combination of Jin and Liao would not have led to the subject
matter of claim 18. Claim 18 is thus further allowable over Jin
and Liao for the foregoing reasons.
The Examiner disagrees, and finds at Liao,
paragraph [0029], the user chooses first operator (or
operation) which has a first type of runtime engine. Liao
describes that “receiving user input inserting a first operator
(or operation) associated with a first type of runtime engine
into a data flow” which means the user has ability to choose [a]
different engine from the GUI. The first operator includes [an]
operator identifier and runtime engine identifier. Liao further
teaches that there are possibl[y] more than two runtime engines
in paragraph [0029], “There are various types of runtime
engines that may be used to process ETL operations—e.g., a
relational database engine or a DataStage ETL engine
among others”.
In conclusion, Liao teaches “receiving user selection of
one of a plurality of names of execution engines presented in
the GUI. ”
(Ans. 53—54).
As discussed above regarding independent claim 15, we find indirect
user identification of a “type” of an execution engine associated with an
operator (Liao 130) also teaches, or at least suggests, user selection of a
name for an execution engine, within the meaning of claim 18, because we
11
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
find a “type” of an engine is also a “name” for an engine. Moreover, claim
18 does not require that “[t]he programmer may type the name of the
execution engine into the pop-up window, or select the name of the
execution engine from a list in the pop-up window,” as described in
Appellants’ Specification (| 47). See App. Br. 2 (“Note that the citation to
passages in the specification and drawings for each claim element does not
imply that limitations from the specification and drawings should be read
into the corresponding claim element.”).
Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we
sustain rejection A of dependent claim 18.
Rejection B of Dependent Claims 8—11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Regarding independent method claim 8, Appellants briefly describe
several paragraphs in Liao, and then merely assert the “receiving” limitation
of claim 8 is not taught by Liao:
Liao refers to a user describing a data flow for an ETL process
using a UI tool (Liao, 1 [0021]), dropping a data station
operator into a data flow to link an upstream operator and a
downstream operator {id., 1 [0026]), receiving user input
inserting a first operator associated with a first type of runtime
engine into a data flow {id., 1 [0029]), and receiving user input
inserting a second operator associated with a second type of
runtime engine into the data flow {id., 1 [0030]).
However, nowhere in Liao is there any teaching or hint
of “receiving. . . user identification of a given execution engine
to associate with the group of nodes selected in the GUI, ”
where the group of nodes is selected according to user selection
of the group of nodes in the data-flow.
Stated differently, although Liao allows a user to drop an
operator into a data flow, Liao does not provide any teaching or
12
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
hint of receiving user identification of a given execution engine
to associate with the group of nodes selected in the GUI.
(App. Br. 12) (emphasis added).
We find Appellants do not advance a separate, substantive argument
for claim 8. See n.l supra (citing Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357). To the extent
Appellants’ assertion (App. Br. 12) might be considered substantive by our
reviewing court, we find it unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed
above regarding claim 15. Therefore, on this record, and based upon a
preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain rejection B of representative independent claim 8.
Associated grouped claims 9-11, 13, and 14 fall with claim 8. See Grouping
of Claims supra.
Rejection B of Independent Claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend representative claim 1 and associated dependent
claims 2—7 were erroneously rejected by the Examiner for the same reasons
argued with respect to independent claim 8. (App. Br. 12—13). However,
we found Appellants’ arguments for claim 8 unpersuasive for the reasons
discussed above. Because Appellants do not advance separate, substantive
arguments for claims 1—7, we sustain rejection B of these claims for the
same reasons discussed above regarding claim 8.
Rejection B of Dependent Claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend claims 16 and 17 were erroneously rejected by the
Examiner for the same reasons argued with respect to dependent claim 18.
(App. Br. 13). Appellants further contend “Jin and Ghoneimy do not
remedy the deficiencies of Liao with respect to the subject matter of claim
13
Appeal 2016-001224
Application 13/454,420
16.” (Id.). Appellants urge that “Claim 17 is further allowable for similar
reasons.” (Id.).
However, we find no deficiencies regarding Liao for the reasons
discussed above. Because Appellants do not advance separate, substantive
arguments for claims 16 and 17, we sustain rejection B of these claims for
the same reasons discussed above regarding claims 1 and 8. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Conclusion
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding all contested issues on
appeal.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—11 and 13—18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time for taking any action connected with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
14