Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

12559399 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/559,399 09/14/2009
63675 7590 08/24/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL
24 Greenway Plaza
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046-2472
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yuan Chi CHANG
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.
SVL920090050US 1 8346
EXAMINER
PEACH, POLINA G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUAN CHI CHANG, MANOJ KUMAR, and
CHUNG-SHENG LI
Appeal2015-002887
Application 12/559,399 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection2 of claims 1--4, 6, 8-13, 15, 17-21, 23, and 25, which are the
only pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 3.
2 The rejections under 35 U.S.C § 112 are withdrawn. Ans. 2-3.
Appeal2015-002887
Application 12/559,399
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to building and executing analytical solutions.
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method for maintaining
business level definitions of source data and analytics
applications available for composition in an analytics solution,
the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of business level information terms
and a respective mapping to an underlying data source, wherein
at least one mapping specifies a function invoked to move data
from the underlying data source to a target data store, wherein
the business level information terms specify data resources,
available from within an enterprise network infrastructure,
independently from the underlying data sources within the
enterprise network infrastructure;
receiving a plurality of business level descriptions of
analytics tools and a respective mapping to an implementation
of each analJ1ics tool provided \'l1ithin the enterprise net\'l/ork
infrastructure, wherein the business level descriptions of the
analytics tools identify analytics methods, performed to
evaluate risks associated with the underlying data sources,
independently from the analytics tools used to provide the
analytics methods;
publishing, by operation of one or more processors, a
business glossary in an analytics information and services
directory, wherein the business glossary includes the plurality
of business level information terms;
publishing, by operation of the one or more processors,
the plurality of business level descriptions of the analytics tools
in the analytics information and services directory;
providing a compositional tool configured to generate the
analytics solution from one or more of the business level
information terms specified via the compositional tool to supply
2
Appeal2015-002887
Application 12/559,399
as input to one or more of the business level descriptions of the
analytics tools specified via the compositional tool;
generating the analytics solution by mapping each
specified business level information term to the respective
underlying data source and by mapping each specified business
level description to the respective analytics tool wherein the
analytics solution determines a measure of risk by evaluating
the underlying data sources included in the analytics solution
using the analytics tools included in the analytics solution.
App. Br. 19-20 (Claims App'x).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6, 10-13, 15, 18-21, and23 stand rejected underpre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brockhaus et al. (US
8,417,715 Bl; issued Apr. 9, 2013) ("Brockhaus") in view of Bursey (US
2009/0157419 Al; published June 18, 2009). Final Act. 6-14.
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bn1ckhaus, Bursey, and Haselden et al.
(US 2007/0162444 Al; published July 12, 2007) ("Haselden"). Final Act.
14--16.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Brockhaus, Bursey, and
Haselden does not teach the claim 1 limitations:
receiving a plurality of business level information terms
and a respective mapping to an underlying data source, wherein
at least one mapping specifies a function invoked to move data
from the underlying data source to a target data store, wherein
the business level information terms specify data resources,
available from within an enterprise network infrastructure,
3
Appeal2015-002887
Application 12/559,399
independently from the underlying data sources within the
enterprise network infrastructure; [and]
providing a compositional tool configured to generate the
analytics solution from one or more of the business level
information terms specified via the compositional tool to supply
as input to one or more of the business level descriptions of the
analytics tools specified via the compositional tool.
App. Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 2---6.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments
and, instead, agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. Final Act.
6-17; Ans. 16-23.
The limitation "receiving a plurality of business
level information ... "
Appellants argue Brockhaus' configuration wizard configures the data
mining tool to install the data mining platform and does not teach "receiving
a plurality of business level information terms" and "business level
information terms" that specify "data resources available from within an
enterprise network infrastructure." App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2---6.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Brockhaus teaches "receiving a
plurality of business level information terms and a respective mapping to an
underlying data source." Ans. 17-18 (citing col. 15, 11. 38--49, 56-59, 62-
66; col. 19, 11. 29-36; col. 9, 11. 18-25). In particular, Brockhaus' business
tasks are business terms pre-configured for user selection and mapped. Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Brockhaus teaches "wherein at
least one mapping specifies a function invoked to move data from the
underlying data source to a target data store." Ans. 18 (citing col. 24, 11. 15-
4
Appeal2015-002887
Application 12/559,399
18; col. 30, 11. 49---67; col. 39, 11. 9-33; col. 31, 11. 28-30). In particular, the
Examiner finds:
Id.
To summarize, the user specified source tables for mappings.
The source data is moved to a target data store by using the
ETL functionality. The ETL moves data from the source into
staging area, from which the data is subsequently transformed
and moved to a specified target data store. Thus, Brockhaus
fully teaches the limitation of "wherein at least one mapping
specifies a function invoked to move data from the underlying
data source to a target data store".
Appellants argue the paragraphs cited by the Examiner are
disconnected and do not teach the "plurality of business level information
terms" specify "data resources, available from within an enterprise network
infrastructure, independently from the underlying data sources within the
enterprise network infrastructure." App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 2---6.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Bruckhaus teaches "wherein the
business level information terms specify data resources, available from
within an enterprise network infrastructure, independently from the
underlying data sources within the enterprise network infrastructure." Ans.
9-20 (citing col. 21, 11. 18--46; col. 7, 11. 23-25; col. 42, 11. 22--42; col. 86, 11.
4--10; col. 36, 11. 47-50; col. 7, 11. 22-25). The Examiner finds Brockhaus
implements a business task using a plurality of data resources, in the form of
algorithms and services, available for selection from the library, including
standalone software that is independent from the underlying data sources. Id.
In particular, the Examiner finds
specifying services, such as data management, which is a
resource "independent of the source" to implement [a] business
solution [] within the enterprise, []fully discloses the limitation
5
Appeal2015-002887
Application 12/559,399
of "wherein the business level information terms specify data
resources, available from within an enterprise network
infrastructure, independently from the underlying data sources
within the enterprise network infrastructure".
Id. at 20.
Appellants present no persuasive evidence the Examiner's
interpretations of "business level information terms" and "independent[]"3 to
include the teachings of Brockhaus is unreasonable or overbroad. Claim
terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, great
care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of the Specification into the
claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
In view of the above, we agree with the Examiner's finding
Bruckhaus teaches the disputed limitation "receiving a plurality of business
level information .... " Ans. 20.
The limitation ''providing a compositional tool ... "
Appellants argue Brockhaus' data mining application generates
predictive models using executable code stored in an algorithm library and
specifies functions to include in a predictive model, but does not teach this
3 See also Specification: "The analytics solution may perform an analytics
task using operational data distributed across a variety of independently
created and governed data repositories in different departments of an
organization." Spec. i-f 20).
6
Appeal2015-002887
Application 12/559,399
disputed limitation. App. Br. 15-16. According to Appellants, Brockhaus
does not teach the claimed "compositional tool." Id.
The Examiner finds Brockhaus teaches the disputed limitation
"providing a compositional tool configured to generate the analytics solution
from one or more of the business level information terms specified via the
compositional tool to supply as input to one or more of the business level
descriptions of the analytics tools specified via the compositional tool."
Ans. 21-22 (citing col. 17, 11. 58---62; col. 47, 11. 44--46; col. 12, 11. 15--45;
col. 18, 11. 32-36; col. 4 7, 11. 30--40). Regarding the term "compositional
tool," the Examiner finds:
"composition" is the act of combining parts or elements to form
a whole (as supported by any dictionary definition). Thus, the
"compositional tool" is construed to be a tool that composes the
solution by combining various resources. Brockhaus
analogously discloses a configuration wizard that integrates and
combines various resources to create (compose) a solution. A
user can build a custom model that provides a business solution
by using a configuration wizard that "provides a simplified user
interface or GUI with orchestrated steps". The configuration
wizard which creates a business solution is the compositional
tool because it combines and integrates various algorithms and
functions to generate such solution.
Id. at 21.
The Examiner finds Brockhaus teaches "the business level
information terms specified via the compositional tool." Id. at 22 (citing col.
18, 11. 32-36). Specifically, the Examiner finds Brockhaus teaches "'a list of
pre-configured business tasks' 'stored in the business task dictionary', are
analog[ ous] to the claimed 'the business level information terms', are
7
Appeal2015-002887
Application 12/559,399
selected and inputted through the configuration wizard, which is the claimed
'compositional tool.'" Id.
We agree with the above Examiner's findings regarding the disputed
limitation "providing a compositional tool ... ,"and Appellants present no
persuasive evidence the Examiner's interpretation of "compositional" to
include the teachings of Brockhaus is unreasonable or overbroad. Crish, 393
F.3d at 1256.
As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments
regarding the disputed limitations and, instead, agree with the Examiner's
findings. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and the rejection of
independent claims 10 and 18 as these claims recite the disputed limitations
and are not argued separately. We also sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 2--4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, 19-21, 23, and 25. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 8-13, 15,
17-21, 23, and25.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8