Ex Parte Cohen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

13247266 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/247,266 09/28/2011 Ira Cohen
56436 7590 05/02/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82755123 9787
EXAMINER
MITIKU, BERHANU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@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 IRA COHEN, REF AEL DAKAR,
ELI MORDECHAI, and OHAD ASSULIN
Appeal2014-004662
Application 13/247,266
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19, all remaining claims of the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-004662
Application 13/247,266
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a "system and related method to
process natural queries is provided" (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A system comprising:
at least one processor to:
receive a natural language query;
determine whether any portion of the natural language
query matches one of a plurality of semantic keywords, each
semantic keyword representing at least one attribute of a
database model, the plurality of semantic keywords comprising
synonymous semantic keywords, the synonymous semantic
keywords representing at least one identical attribute of the
database model to disambiguate ambiguous words in the natural
language query;
translate the natural language query into at least one
database query, the at least one database query using a unique
combination of attributes of the database model, each attribute
in the unique combination being represented by a semantic
keyword that matches any portion of the natural language
query;
to rank the at least one database query based on a
relevancy of each database query such that the relevancy is
further based on a number of one to one associations between
the unique combination of attributes and the semantic keywords
that match portions of the natural language query; and
execute the at least one database query in a database
arranged in accordance with the database model.
2
Appeal2014-004662
Application 13/247,266
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kaiser (US 7,720,674 B2,
issued May 18, 2010), Li (US 2008/0235199 Al, published Sept. 25, 2008),
and Adair (US 7,953,727 B2, issued May 31, 2011).
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kaiser, Li, Adair, and Jung
(US 7 ,904,4 77 B2, issued Mar. 8, 2011 ).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kaiser teaches
synchronous semantic keywords representing at least one identical attribute
of a database model to disambiguate ambiguous words in a natural language
query (App. Br. 9), Li teaches ranking based on semantic keywords that
match portions of the natural language query (App. Br. 9-10), and Adair
teaches ranking at least one database query based on the relevancy of each
database query (App. Br. 10-11).
The Examiner finds Kaiser implements various functions for
translating a natural language query, including tokenization, to resolve
uncertainties (ambiguities) (Ans. 4; Kaiser col. 7, 11. 28-33). Appellants'
arguments recite what Kaiser discloses and merely state Kaiser does not
teach the claim limitations for which it was cited, without providing
evidence or reasoning as to how Kaiser's disclosure does not teach
Appellants claim limitations. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner relies on Li's paragraph 4 for disclosing "translating a
natural language query into a structured query for a database" and paragraph
3
Appeal2014-004662
Application 13/247,266
29 for disclosing a classifier "can then further classify the tokens and
markers into types based on their potential semantic contributions in the
query translation," meeting the claim limitation (Final Act. 10-11 ).
Appellants have not argued Li for what it was cited, rather they argue Li
does not disclose the ranking step, not the translating step. Thus,
Appellants' argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection.
The Examiner finds Adair's "desirability" metric is the same as
Appellants' relevancy metric (Ans. 5; see Spec. i-fi-f 18, 29 "a highest ranked
database query may cause the database to generate a result that is most
relevant"). That is, Adair's ranking queries based on high or low ranked
queries, is considered a relevancy metric. The Examiner's findings are
reasonable and, again, Appellants have merely recited the claim language
and portions of Adair, stating they are not the same, without any further
reasoning or persuasive evidence (App. Br. 10-11). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Although independent claims 1, 8, and 15 were argued separately,
substantially similar arguments were made for each claim. Thus, for the
reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 8,
and 15, claims 3, 7, 10, 14, and 18, argued therewith (App. Br. 11, 15, and
18), and claims 5, 12, and 19, not argued separately (App. Br. 18).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15,
1 7, and 19 is 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)(l )(iv).
4
Appeal2014-004662
Application 13/247,266
AFFIRMED
5