13526980 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

Ex Parte Cherepinsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 23, 2016

13526980 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/526,980 06/19/2012 91017 7590 08/25/2016 Cantor Colburn LLP - Sikorsky Aircraft Corp, 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Igor Cherepinsky 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. PA-0018883-US 1137 EXAMINER WONG,YUENH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3667 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2016 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): usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IGOR CHEREPINSKY, RONALD G. McCALL, SEAN S. CARLSON, CAUVIN POLYCARPE, and JOSHUA M. LELAND Appeal2014-007911 Application 13/526,980 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-007911 Application 13/526,980 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Igor Cherepinsky et al. (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 12-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bukowski (US 2005/0203930 Al, pub. Sept. 15, 2005) and Salemann (US 2011/0202510 Al, pub. Aug. 18, 2011. 2 Claims 3, 5, 10, 11, and 17 are cancelled. Br. 2; Amendment 5 (Nov. 11, 2013). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instrr1ctions that, \'l1hen executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: organize items of raw data received from at least one sensor of a vehicle as a first data structure, organize classified data objects as a second data structure link at least one item of the first data structure to at least one object of the second data structure, and receive a search request and return generated search results comprising both raw data from the first data structure and classified data objects from the second data structure that are relevant to the search request, 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. Br. 1. 2 The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112 (Final Act. 2- 3) is withdrawn and is not before us on appeal. Adv. Act. 1 (Dec. 18, 2013). 2 Appeal2014-007911 Application 13/526,980 wherein the first data structure comprises a super node configured to provide a link as a relational database link. OPINION The Examiner finds the combination of Bukowski and Salemann teaches or suggests all of the limitations of independent claim 1, and the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate Salemann's teachings with Bukowski's teachings "to accurately reflect a geographic region being modeled." Final Act. 3-5. With respect to the teachings of Bukowski, the Examiner finds that Bukowski teaches, inter alia, classified data objects organized as a second data structure in that it teaches "a plurality of spatial block data objects" included in a data structure. Final Act. 4 (citing Bukowski i-f 36, claim 25). The Examiner further finds that Bukowski teaches receiving a search request and returning generated search results comprising classified data objects from the second data structure. Id. at 5---6 (citing Bukowski i1i1 6, 7, 29, 3 6, 44, 62, 118, 129). In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that Bukowski' s point data corresponds to the claimed "raw data" and reiterates that Bukowski' s spatial block data objects correspond to the claimed "classified data objects." Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that "[t]he point data (i.e.[,] raw data) and spatial blocks (i.e.[,] classified data objects) are loaded to generate result[s] to satisfy a data request." Id. (citing Bukowski i-fi-1 42--44, Fig. 3). The Examiner also points to "the similarity of ... Appellant[ s '] Fig[ ure] 1 and Bukowski' s Fig[ ure] 3 with respect to the data structures by comparison." Id. 3 Appeal2014-007911 Application 13/526,980 Appellants argue that "Bukowski is completely silent regarding the data that is displayed to the user (the alleged generated search results) comprising both raw data from a first data structure and classified data objects from a second data structure that are relevant to a query." Br. 6. Appellants further argue that "Salemann fails to remedy the deficiencies of Bukowski." Id. Other than providing a list of paragraphs in Bukowski that purportedly teach the disputed limitation, the Examiner does not explain specifically where or how Bukowski teaches which data is included in search results generated in response to a search request. One of the paragraphs in Bukowski listed by the Examiner is paragraph 29, which states that: Because the data is organized by spatial density and area or region of space in the single structure, the database can be queried easily and quickly to return a subset of the data at a selected location and at a selected resolution. The data that is subsequently displayed to the user is then actual point data, from the subset, and not a geometric representation as in many existing systems. Bukowski i-f 29. Although this passage supports that a subset of data is returned in response to a query in Bukowski, it fails to adequately support that both point data (identified by the Examiner as the claimed "raw data from the first data structure") and spatial blocks (identified by the Examiner as the claimed "classified data objects from the second data structure") are returned as results in response to a query. We also fail to see how the remaining paragraphs listed by the Examiner provide support for the finding that both point data and spatial block data objects are returned as results in response to a query in Bukowski. 4 Appeal2014-007911 Application 13/526,980 In the absence of additional findings or explanation by the Examiner as to Bukowski' s teachings regarding the content of generated search results in response to a search request, the Examiner's position that the returned search results in response to a search request include both point data and spatial blocks appears to be based on speculation and/or conjecture. Therefore, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Bukowski teaches that spatial block data objects (corresponding to the claimed "classified data objects from the second data structure") are included in the search results, such that Bukowski teaches "retum[ing] generated search results comprising ... classified data objects from the second data structure" as recited in independent claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Bukowski and Salemann renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 6-9, 12-16, and 18-20 for the same reasons. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 12-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 5