Ex Parte Chaturvedi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13414374 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/414,374 03/07/2012
46157 7590 10/04/2016
EDELL, SHAPIRO, & FINNAN, LLC
9801 Washingtonian Blvd.
Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Snigdha Chaturvedi
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.
IN920110189US3/0920.0179C 3943
EXAMINER
LIU, HEXING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SNIGDHA CHATURVEDI, TANVEER A. FARUQUIE, RIMA P.
KARANAM, MARVIN MENDELSSOHN, MUKESH K. MOHANIA, and
L. VENKATA SUBRAMANIAM
Appeal2015-002863
Application 13/414,374
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Rejection of Claims 1-13. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed July 7, 2014)
("Br."); the Examiner's Answer (mailed Oct. 24, 2014) ("Ans."); and the
Non-Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 16, 2013) ("Non-Final Act.").
2 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is International Business
Machines Corporation. Br. 3.
3 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal2015-002863
Application 13/414,374
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a system and computer program
product for mining for sub-patterns within a text data set. Abstract. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized and
some formatting added:
1. A system for mining for sub-patterns within a text data
set, the system comprising:
a data source to store a text data set; and
a processor configured with logic to:
find a set of N frequently occurring sub-patterns
within the data set;
extract the N sub-patterns from the data set; and
cluster the extracted sub-patterns into K groups
such that each extracted sub-pattern is placed within the
same group with other extracted sub-patterns based upon
a distance value D that determines a degree of similarity
based upon a longest common substring between the sub-
pattern and every other sub-pattern within the same
group and also based upon values associated with
characters or symbols for the sub-pattern and every
other sub-pattern within the same group.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Inoue et al.
("Inoue")
Zhao
Plaster et al.
US 2003/0161504 Al
US 7,590,628 B2
US 8,200,670 Bl
2
Aug.28,2003
Sept. 15, 2009
June 12, 2012
Appeal2015-002863
Application 13/414,374
("Plaster")
Xiaonan Ji et al., An Efficient Technique for Mining Approximately Frequent
Substring Patterns, Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data Mining
- Workshops, pp. 325-330, (2007) ("Ji").
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1-13 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-8 of co-pending
Application No. 13/415, 144. Non-Final Act. 2--4.
2. Claims 1, 5-8, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhao and Ji. Non-Final Act. 5-9.
3. Claims 3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhao, Ji, and Inoue. Non-Final Act. 9-10.
4. Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhao, Ji, Inoue, and Plaster. Non-Final Act. 10-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions.
DOUBLE PATENTING
Appellants present no arguments pertaining to the Examiner's double
patenting rejection of claims 1-13. We, therefore, summarily sustain these
rejections. See MPEP § 1205.02, 9th ed., Rev. 7, Nov. 2015 ("If a ground of
rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief,
appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board
3
Appeal2015-002863
Application 13/414,374
may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the
rejection in the examiner's answer.").
CLAIMS 1, 5-8, 12, AND 13 OVER ZHAO AND JI
With respect to independent Claims 1 and 6, Appellants argue Zhao
does not teach or suggest that the longest match anchor text is obtained from
finding a set ofN frequently occurring sub-patterns within a data set,
extracting the N sub-patterns from the data set, and clustering the extracted
sub-patterns into K groups. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellants note Zhao
teaches selecting peer documents based on being in same domain as the
source document in which each peer document is linked to via a hyperlink in
linking documents within the domain. Id. Appellants contend Zhao teaches
generating a label for each peer document by choosing the longest match
anchor text found from the linking documents. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because the
Examiner relies on individual patterns in Zhao, not the longest match anchor
text in Zhao, to teach the recited sub-patterns. Ans. 5 (citing Zhao col. 14, 11.
20-40). Zhao teaches that the patterns are identified from labels and the
titles of the collection of peer documents. Zhao col. 3, 11. 15-17. Zhao
further teaches an individual pattern is identified for each peer document.
Zhao col. 14, 11. 8-11. The individual pattern is a distinct characteristic of a
peer document from its longest match anchor text found from its linking
documents. See Zhao Figs. 6(b), 6(c) for peer documents DI, D3, and D4.
The Examiner finds Zhao teaches identifying individual patterns occurring
above a threshold. Ans. 5 (citing Zhao col. 14, 11. 20-40); see Zhao col. 14,
11. 20-22 ("After importer 108 identifies an individual pattern for each peer
4
Appeal2015-002863
Application 13/414,374
document, it identifies 330 one or more general patterns by choosing
individual patterns that occur above a threshold."). The Examiner further
finds Zhao teaches that these individual patterns are filtered out based on
labels unrelated to the subjects of the associated peer documents. Non-Final
Act. 6 (citing Zhao col. 13, 11. 34--38). According to the Examiner, Zhao
teaches placing similar individual patterns into groups. Non-Final Act. 6
(citing Zhao col. 14, 11. 28-29); Ans. 5. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in finding the individual patterns in Zhao teach the sub-
patterns in the disputed limitations.
Appellants assert Ji does not teach each extracted sub-pattern being
placed within the same group with other extracted sub-patterns based upon
distance value D that determines a degree of similarity between the sub-
pattern and every other sub-pattern within the same group, as recited in
independent Claims 1 and 6. Br. 13-14. Appellants note Ji teaches
mining approximate sequential patterns in which sequences are clustered
into groups based on edit distance. Br. 14; see Ji 330. Appellants dispute
the edit distance in Ji teaches the recited distance value D. Br. 14. The
Examiner finds Ji defines the edit distance as an indication of dissimilarity.
Ans. 5 (citing Ji 326). The Examiner further finds Ji teaches using the edit
distance to find similarity in string and substring patterns. Ans. 5. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that Ji teaches a distance value D that determines a
degree of similarity between sub-patterns.
Appellants contend the combination of Zhao and Ji "would not
provide any motivational or predictable reason to obtain the recited distance
value D." Br. 14. As discussed above, the Examiner finds Ji teaches
distance value D. Ans. 5 (citing Ji 326). The Examiner provides articulated
5
Appeal2015-002863
Application 13/414,374
reasoning with rational underpinning supporting the conclusion of
obviousness, , explaining that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine Zhao and Ji to allow effective pattern matching
based on frequently occurring substrings. Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Ji
Abstract); Ans. 5---6. Appellants do no rebut the Examiner's reasoning. Br.
14. Accordingly, we see no error in the Examiner's rationale.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent Claims 1 and 6. We likewise sustain the rejection of Claims 5,
7, 8, 12, and 13 which depend from Claim 1 or Claim 6, for which no
additional persuasive arguments have been presented. Br. 15.
CLAIMS 3 AND 10 OVER ZHAO, JI, AND INOUE
Appellants contend Inoue fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of
Zhao and Ji. Br. 15. In view of the above discussion, we are not
persuaded the Examiner has erred.
CLAIMS 4 AND 11 OVER ZHAO, JI, AND PLASTER
Appellants contend Plaster fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of
Zhao and Ji. Br. 15. In view of the above discussion, we are not
persuaded the Examiner has erred.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-13 on the ground ofnonstatutory double
patenting is AFFIRMED.
The rejections of Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are AFFIRMED.
6
Appeal2015-002863
Application 13/414,374
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
7