Ex Parte Dewar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2016

13034786 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/034,786 02/25/2011
45725 7590 02/11/2016
Walder Intellectual Property Law PC
17304 Preston Road
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Dewar
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.
CA920085l89US1 1490
EXAMINER
GLASSER, DARA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID DEW AR, GLENN D. RASMUSSEN,
and KA THERINE A. WALLA CE 1
Appeal2013-008563
Application 13/034,786
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-23, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. Br. 2.
Appeal2013-008563
Application 13/034,786
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to managing drill-through parameter
mappings in a data processing system. Spec. i-f 1, Abstract.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claim Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows:
1. A method, in a data processing system, for creating drill-
through parameter mapping candidates, the method comprising:
analyzing source metadata, target metadata, and a first set
of parameter mapping candidates to form analyzed metadata:
generating a second set of parameter mapping candidates
using the analyzed metadata;
pruning the second set of parameter mapping candidates
using parameter mapping metadata from a previous analysis
operation and assigned scores from the previous analysis
operation to form a pruned set of parameter mapping
candidates; and
returning the pruned set of parameter mapping candidates
to an agent.
RFJECTION
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Vierich (US 2004/0139045 Al; July 15, 2004)
and Thomas (US 2011/0258237; Oct. 20, 2011).
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants present the following contentions addressing independent
claims 1, 8, and 16:
A. "[T]he NXDomains [of Thomas] that are collected are not about both a
source and a target, as claimed in the present case, and, further are not
used to create drill-through parameter mapping metadata, as claimed.
App. Br. 8.
2
Appeal2013-008563
Application 13/034,786
B. "[T]he identified NXDomains [of Thomas] and their unique counts are
not utilized to generate a second set of parameter mapping candidates
using the identified NXDomains and the unique counts, as claimed." Id.
at 8-9.
C. "' [P]arameter mapping metadata,' as claimed, refers to metadata that
relates source information to target information in a drill-through
reporting process. . . NXDomains and IP addresses of the NXDomains
are addresses that point to a particular piece of information. Even if
addresses are deemed to be metadata, such 'metadata' does not relate
source information to target information, as claimed." Id. at 10.
D. "[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not equate assigned scores to a
calculated number of hits .... The presently claimed assigned score is a
ranking, which may utilize a predetermined preference for ranking. Id. at
12.
E. "[T]he present invention utilizes an accepted set of mappings, parameter
mapping metadata and assigned scores, from a previous invocation of
the generation process to prune the second set of parameter mapping
candidates." Id. at 13; see id. at 14, 16-17; Reply Br. 4---6.
F. The Examiner erred in alleging 'a previous analysis operation' and 'a
parameter mapping metadata' do not refer back to the presently claimed
features of analyzing a source metadata, target metadata, and a first set of
parameter mapping candidates to form analyzed metadata; and generating
a second set of parameter mapping candidates using the analyzed
metadata." Reply Br. 4; see id. at 5, 10.
3
Appeal2013-008563
Application 13/034,786
G. "[T]here is no teaching in Thomas of using a previous set of requests to
resolve NXDomains or a previous listing ofNXDomains that are sorted
by the number of requests or dates to prune anything." App. Br. 11.
H. Thomas' s "calculated number of hits for each NXDomain is not from a
previous analysis operation," and "is not used to prune a second set of
parameter mapping candidates using parameter mapping metadata from a
previous analysis and assigned scores." Id. at 12-13.
I. The Examiner "erred in alleging 'Because the log files of Thomas are
analyzed prior to the creation and elimination of mappings, Thomas
discloses 'a previous analysis operation.' ... [T]he minimum or
threshold number of hits or some specified geographical area or geo-
location data also are not from a previous analysis operation." Reply Br.
5; see Ans. 5; Reply Br. 7, 9.
J. The Examiner "erred in alleging that 'Thomas' s system eliminates
mappings based upon the geo-location information and unique counts
obtained during the scanning operation, which occurs prior to the
mapping and elimination.' That is, Thomas eliminates data from the
third mapping based on criteria of some minimum threshold number of
hits from some specified geographical area or geo-location as determined
by requesting IP addresses which is specified by the user." Reply Br. 9;
see Ans. 7; Reply Br. 2, 5, 11, 14, 20, 22.
K. "[T]there is no teaching, suggestion, or technical reason in Vierich and
Thomas, either alone or in combination, that a problem exists for which
pruning the second set of parameter mapping candidates using parameter
mapping metadata from a previous analysis operation and assigned
scores from the previous analysis operation to form a pruned set of
4
Appeal2013-008563
Application 13/034,786
parameter mapping candidates, is a solution .... None of the references
teaches, suggests, or provides a technical reason for the presently claimed
features." App. Br. 14; see Reply Br. 21-22.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief, and the Examiner's Answer in light of the
arguments presented in the Reply Brief. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis below.
As to Appellants arguments A and B, we agree with the Examiner's
following observations: (1) the claims do not recite "drill-through parameter
mapping metadata;" and (2) Vierich, not Thomas, is utilized to teach
"generating a second set of parameter mapping candidates using the
analyzed metadata." See Ans. 5---6.
Regarding Appellants' arguments C and D, we agree with the
Examiner that "parameter mapping metadata" and "assigned scores," recited
in claim 1, are not limited to relating source information to target
information, and a ranking, respectively. See Ans. 9, 12. We further agree
with the Examiner that neither term is defined explicitly in the Specification.
Ans. 9-10 (citing Spec. i-f 89), 12-13 (citing Spec. i-fi-189, 92). We agree with
and adopt the Examiner's broad, yet reasonable, interpretations that: ( 1)
"parameter mapping metadata" includes geolocation data; and (2) "assigned
scores" include a hit count. See Ans. 7.
Regarding Appellants' arguments E and F, we agree with the
Examiner's following observations: (1) "a previous invocation of the
generation process" is not recited in the claims; and (2) the "recitation of 'a
previous analysis operation" does not "refer to the claimed 'generating
5
Appeal2013-008563
Application 13/034,786
step."' Ans. 14. We further agree "the claimed 'parameter mapping
metadata' recited in the 'pruning' step does not refer back to the claimed
'analyzed metadata' in the analyzing step." Ans. 5; see id. at 9.
As to Appellants' arguments G and H, we agree with the Examiner
that "the final Office action does not equate the claimed pruning step to
simply 'sorting a list of requests for NXDomains by requests for each
NXDomain. "' See Ans. 7-8. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's
following findings: (1) the claimed "pruning" corresponds to Thomas' s
eliminating potential matches that fail to satisfy a criterion; (2) the claimed
"second set of parameter mapping candidates" corresponds to Thomas' s
third mapping; (3) the claimed "parameter mapping metadata" corresponds
to Thomas' s geolocation data; ( 4) the claimed "assigned scores" corresponds
to Thomas' s hit count; and ( 5) the claimed "previous analysis operation"
corresponds to Thomas' s scanning the original dataset. Ans. 7 (citing
Thomas i-fi-1 40, 49, 58); see Ans. 5 (citing Thomas i-fi-f 14, 58).
Regarding Appellants' arguments I and J, we note that Appellants
acknowledge that the Thomas's hit count and geo-location information are
derived from information in the log file. Reply Br. 9. Appellants do not
explain sufficiently why the derivation of a hit count and geo-location
information from a log file does not teach or suggest "a previous analysis."
Claim 1 does not preclude the use of a threshold for the pruning step. Claim
1 utilizes the term "comprising," and is, therefore, open-ended. Appellants
do not explain sufficiently why Thomas's threshold number of hits and geo-
location data, derived from information in a log file, fails to teach or suggest
"using parameter mapping metadata from a previous analysis operation and
assigned scores from the previous analysis operation."
6
Appeal2013-008563
Application 13/034,786
As to Appellants' argument K, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner's conclusion and underlying rational reasoning that it would have
been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of
Vierich and Thomas for the benefit of presenting the user with results
organized in accordance with specified criteria. See Final Act. 5 (citing
Thomas i-f 37); Ans. 17-18. Moreover, Appellant does not direct us to
persuasive authority to support its argument that there must be a teaching,
suggestion, or technical reason in the references that a problem exists. "One
of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a
prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings." Cross Medical
Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed.
Cir. 2005). As to Appellants' argument that none of the references teach,
suggest, or provide a technical reason for the claimed features, we note that
the rigid application of the "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" (TSM) test,
has been rejected in favor of an "expansive and flexible approach." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15.
Appellants present arguments under a separate heading addressing
dependent claims 2, 9, and 16. App. Br. 15-17. However, Appellants'
arguments addressing claims 2, 9, and 16 merely reiterate previous
arguments addressing claims 1, 8, and 15. See id. For the same reasons as
those above addressing claims 1, 8, and 15, we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 9, and 16, and dependent
claims 3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 17, and 19-23, not separately and substantively
argued.
7
Appeal2013-008563
Application 13/034,786
In the Event of Further Prosecution
We have decided the Appeal before us. We direct the Examiner's
attention to independent claim 8 which recites: "[a] computer program
product ... comprising: a computer recordable type storage media." We
further direct the Examiner's attention to paragraph 26 of Appellant's
Specification which includes the following disclosure: "the present
invention may take the form of a computer program product tangibly
embodied in any medium of expression with computer usable program code
embodied in the medium." Spec. i-f 26 (emphasis added).
Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner
may wish to review claim 8, and any claims dependent therefrom, to
determine whether it is directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 in light of the examination instructions on patent eligible subject
matter, and Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1859 (PTAB 2013)
(precedential-in-part) (concluding the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"machine-readable storage medium" includes signals per se, absent limiting
language in the specification). See 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74,618 (Dec. 16, 2014), which supplements
the "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court
Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al."
US Patent and Trademark Office (June 25, 2014),
http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/fi1es/patents/announce/a1ice pee 25jun2
014.pdf, Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Aug.
2012 Update, US Patent and Trademark Office, 11-14,
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/101 training_aug2012.pdf.
8
Appeal2013-008563
Application 13/034,786
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-23.
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).
AFFIRMED
9