Ex Parte Castellanos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13181059 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/181,059 07/12/2011 Maria G. Castellanos 82576902 3622
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
DWIVEDI, MAHESH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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 G. CASTELLANOS, PERLA RUIZ,
UMESHWAR DAYAL, and MOHAMED DEKHIL
Appeal 2015-003063
Application 13/181,059
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-003063
Application 13/181,059
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1—5 and 7—21. The Examiner has indicated claims 6 and 7 contain
allowable subject matter. Final Act. 43. The Examiner has withdrawn the
rejection to claim 6. See Ans. 6—7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method of visually representing how a sentiment score
is computed comprising:
with a sentiment scoring device, determining a number of
sentiment scores for each of a number of attributes within a
forum;
writing a visualization file in a database based on
metadata representing the sentiment scores; and
presenting, on an output device, an attribute visualization
window, the attribute visualization window comprising:
a tag cloud comprising a number of tokens
representing a number of attributes;
and
a number of attribute tables, each attribute table
comprising a number of rows, each row comprising a
sentiment score for the occurrence of an attribute of the
number of attributes within a sentence of the forum.
Examiner’s Rejections
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph for
lack of antecedent basis.
2
Appeal 2015-003063
Application 13/181,059
Claims 1—4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Bandara (US 2008/0133488 Al; pub. June 5, 2008).
Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bandaru, Blanchard (US 2008/0072145 Al; pub. Mar. 20,
2008), and Hubert (US 2010/0131899 Al; pub. May 27, 2010).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bandaru and Yazdani (US 2011/0153330 Al; pub. June. 23, 2011).
Claims 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bandaru and Kotler (US 2005/0044496 Al; pub. Feb. 24, 2005).
Claims 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bandaru and Blanchard.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bandaru, Blanchard, and Kotler.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bandaru and Marchisio (US 2007 /0156669 Al; pub. July 5, 2007).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner raises several issues that are not properly before us on
Appeal. See Ans. 2—6. The Board normally only considers matters affecting
the merits of the invention, i.e., rejections of claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.31(c) (2011). Because the issues raised on pages 2—6 of the Examiner’s
Answer are not rejections of the claims, we do not address them. Here, we
only consider the rejections to the claims.
3
Appeal 2015-003063
Application 13/181,059
Section 112, second paragraph rejection of claim 7
Appellants state that they will address this rejection after resolving
this Appeal. Reply Br. 6. We summarily affirm the rejection to claim 7
under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 8
Claim 1 recites “presenting, on an output device ... a number of
attribute tables, each attribute table comprising a number of rows, each row
comprising a sentiment score for the occurrence of an attribute of the
number of attributes within a sentence of the forum.” Appellants provide
support for this limitation in Figure 4 of Appellants’ Specification, which
shows attribute table 450. App. Br. 6. Appellants contend Bandaru does not
disclose “presenting” the attribute tables shown in Figures 8 and 13 “on an
output device.” App. Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 7—9. However, the scope of
claim 1 does not limit the “output device” to an electronic device.
Appellants have not provided a definition of “output device” that excludes
printed paper, such as the pages of Bandaru showing Figures 8 and 13.
Further, Appellants’ contention is inconsistent with Figure 16B of Bandaru,
which shows presenting a tag cloud and an attribute table showing a number
of rows comprising a score for attributes such as casual service.
We also highlight that the data contained in the “number of attribute
tables” presented on the output device of claim 1 do not affect any
subsequent method steps. Rather, the data is described in terms of what the
data represents, without any functional relationship between the data and any
subsequent steps. The data contained in the tables is non-functional
descriptive material, which does not patentably distinguish the claim over
4
Appeal 2015-003063
Application 13/181,059
the prior art. The scope of this limitation encompasses presenting, on an
output device, a number of tables comprising data.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 3,4, and 8
which fall with claim 1.
Section 102 rejection of claim 2
Appellants contend Bandaru does not disclose “storing the elements in
a number of data structures corresponding to the elements’ roles in
determining the sentiment scores,” as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 19; Reply
Br. 10—11. The Examiner finds the features of the tag cloud and heat map
stored by Bandaru teach metadata representing the sentiment scores
comprises storing the elements in a number of data structures corresponding
to the elements’ roles in determining the sentiment scores within the
meaning of claim 2. Ans. 10—11. The Examiner also finds the metadata of
Figure 13 of Bandaru teaches the disputed limitation of claim 2. Ans. 11.
Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings.
We sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Section 103 rejection of claims 5 and 17
Appellants contend the combination of Bandaru, Blanchard, and
Hubert does not teach “each token within a tag cloud is represented by one
of the attribute tables” as recited in claim 5. Reply Br. 11—14. The
Examiner finds the pop-up window shown in Figure 6 of Blanchard teaches
this limitation. Ans. 14. Appellants’ contention is inconsistent with the
pop-up window of Blanchard, which shows tag attribute details 640, or “one
5
Appeal 2015-003063
Application 13/181,059
of the attribute tables,” related to the corresponding tag, or “token within a
tag cloud,” within the meaning of claim 5.
Appellants also contend the Examiner uses impermissible hindsight in
combining the teachings of Bandaru, Blanchard, and Hubert. App. Br. 19—
21; Reply Br. 11—14. Appellants have not persuasively shown that
incorporating the pop-up window of Blanchard into the tag cloud shown in
Figure 16B of Bandaru, and including sentiment score information for the
tag from one or both of the tables shown in Figures 8 and 13 of Bandaru into
the pop-up window, was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher—Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,419 (2007)).
We sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 17 which falls
with claim 5.
Section 103 rejection of claims 10 and 12—15
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claim 10 similar
to those presented for claim 1, which we find unpersuasive. App. Br. 22—23;
Reply Br. 15—17. Appellants also contend the Examiner uses impermissible
hindsight in combining the teachings of Bandaru and Kotler. App. Br. 23—
25; Reply Br. 17—19. The Examiner finds Figure 3 of Kotler teaches
displaying a formula used to calculate a value in a table to a user during
editing. Final Act. 25—26.
We agree with the Examiner that a user, when editing a formula used
to calculate the sentiment scores of Bandaru (Fig. 8, 61—77), such as
6
Appeal 2015-003063
Application 13/181,059
when extending sentiment scores to other domains (176), would display the
formula used to calculate the score, along with the table showing the score
as taught by Kotler (Figs. 1, 3; Tflf 26, 44).
We sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 12—
15, which fall with claim 10.
Section 103 rejection of claim 11
Claim 11 recites “the attribute tables comprise an attribute table for
each attribute within the tag cloud.” Appellants contend the Examiner, in
the Final Rejection, has conceded that Bandaru does not teach each token
within a tag cloud is represented by one of the attribute tables. App. Br. 25;
Reply Br. 20. However, in the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds Bandaru
teaches the attribute tables comprise an attribute table for each attribute
within the tag cloud. Final Act. 26. Appellants’ contention is inconsistent
with and not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejection of claims 16, 18, and 19
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 16, 18,
and 19 similar to those presented for claim 1, which we find unpersuasive.
App. Br. 26—28; Reply Br. 21—24. We sustain the rejection of claims 16, 18,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Appeal 2015-003063
Application 13/181,059
Section 103 rejections of claims 9, 20, and 21
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 9, 20, and 21. We sustain the rejections of claims 9, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—5 and 7—21 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8