Ex Parte Ezzat

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12911389 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/911,389 10/25/2010 Ahmed K. Ezzat
56436 7590 02/18/2016
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.
82263551 1070
EXAMINER
SHMATOV, ALEXEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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 AHMED K. EZZA T
Appeal2014-004526
Application 12/911,389
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP
("HPDC") as the real party in interest. HPDC is a wholly-owned affiliate of
Hewlett-Packard Company. The general or managing partner of HPDC is
HPQ Holdings, LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004526
Application 12/911,389
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method of processing a
business intelligence client request by acquiring data from multiple sources
in multiple formats and converting the data to a common format. Spec.
iTiT 26-29.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a business intelligence client request;
acquiring data from a plurality of data sources relevant to
the business intelligence client request, wherein a first portion of
the data is acquired from a first data source in a first data format
native to the first data source, and a second portion of the data is
acquired from a second data source in a second data format
native to the second data source;
converting the data into a common data format and storing
the data to a common data store; and
processing the business intelligence client request on the
common data store.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wyatt US 2007 /0022093 Al Jan.25,2007
Azizi US 2007/0061305 Al Mar. 15, 2007
Guha US 2010/0114899 Al May 6, 2010
Branigan US 2011/0125904 Al May 26, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wyatt. Final Act. 2-8.
2
Appeal2014-004526
Application 12/911,389
Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wyatt in view of Guha. Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 7, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wyatt in view of Branigan. Final Act. 9-12.
Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wyatt in view of Azizi. Final Act. 12-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We disagree
with Appellant's arguments with respect to claims 1-21, and we incorporate
herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-13),
and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's arguments (Ans. 2-8). We incorporate such
findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted.
However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding claims 1 and 6 for emphasis as follows.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20
Appellant argues Wyatt discloses a system in which data is accessed
and converted from its native format to a common format prior to receipt of
a business intelligence request. App. Br. 8-9. Although, Wyatt discloses
creation of an analytical cube in response to business intelligence request,
the cube is created from a single data source with a single data format. App.
3
Appeal2014-004526
Application 12/911,389
Br. 9-10. According to Appellant, Wyatt does not disclose the receiving
step followed by the acquiring step as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-10;
Reply Br. 1-2.
The Examiner finds Wyatt discloses receiving a business intelligence
request and acquiring data from a plurality of sources with at least two data
source formats. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner concludes, based on the
limitations of dependent claim 9, business intelligence client requests is
broad enough to encompass OLAP and data mining as disclosed in Wyatt.
Ans. 3--4.
Appellant's argument is premised on a specific order to the method
steps of claim 1 in which the business intelligence request must be received
prior to the acquisition and conversion of the data relevant to that request.
Reply Br. 2 ("The Appellant respectfully notes that the current claims
generally recite receiving a business intelligence request, and subsequently
acquiring data from a plurality of sources relevant to the business
intelligence client request."). However, it is improper to read a specific
order of steps into method claims unless "as a matter of logic or grammar,
they must be performed in the order written" or if the specification "directly
or implicitly requires such a narrow construction." Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec
Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). In this case,
Appellants have not presented persuasive evidence that either the language
of claim 1 or Appellant's Specification requires any specific order to the
receiving and acquiring steps. The broadest reasonable interpretation2 of
2 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
4
Appeal2014-004526
Application 12/911,389
claim 1 includes acquiring data prior to the receipt of a specific business
intelligence request so long as the data that was acquired includes data that is
"relevant" to the eventual business intelligence client request. As such,
because Appellant's arguments premised on the order or steps are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims, they are unpersuasive. See In re
Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Appellant also argues Wyatt does not disclose "converting the data
into a common format and storing the data to a common data store," as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-11. According to Appellant neither the
multidimensional analytical cube nor the ETL process discussed in Wyatt
disclose that limitation:
As explained above, the Wyatt multidimensional cube may be
generated from a query, but the received data is not stored to a
common data store. Indeed, the data is not physically moved in
response to a query. On the other hand, although the ETL
process may involve storing data to a common data store, it does
not store data that has been identified as a result of a query.
Accordingly, neither embodiment described in Wyatt discloses
"converting the data into a common data format and storing the
data to a common data store; and processing the business
intelligence client request on the common data store," wherein it
is understood that "the data" is data that has been received
from various sources in response to a business intelligence
request.
App. Br. 11 (emphasis added).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. As the emphasized
text makes clear, Appellant's argument is premised on the same claim
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
5
Appeal2014-004526
Application 12/911,389
construction that required the data to be acquired after a request has been
made that we previously rejected. Accordingly, the argument is not
persuasive.
The Examiner finds Wyatt discloses converting and saving data prior
to a search being conducted. Final Act. 3; Ans. 5-6. For example, the
Examiner relies on paragraph 95 (Ans. 5), which states:
As shown in FIG. 15, the XOLAP server 62 aggregates
data from various sources 34 into an XML-based cache and
makes it available for analysis and reporting. It works with
multiple data sources including both relational and non relational
and enables business users to instantly generate sophisticated
reports across multiple sources using a web/server portal,
existing reporting tools or analytic applications.
Wyatt i-f 95 (original emphasis omitted, emphasis added). The Examiner
concludes the "[a]ggregation of data as shown above clearly reads on the
broad claim limitation of 'storing the data to a common data store,'" as
recited in claim 1. Ans. 5---6.
According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of claims 2, 4, 8-11, 13, 15, 16, and 20, which are argued
on the same grounds. With respect to dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, and
17-19, Appellant merely contends that because the additional references
used in the rejections of these claims (Guha, Branigan, and Azizi) do not
cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner failed to make
a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 12-15.
Because we determine there are no deficiencies associated with the rejection
of claim 1, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of these
claims.
6
Appeal2014-004526
Application 12/911,389
Claim 6
Appellant argues Wyatt does not disclose the use of contextual
information as recited in claim 6. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4. Appellant's
argument focuses on Wyatt disclosing a user selecting data sources and not
the contextual indications which "is used to identify the plurality of data
sources relevant to the business intelligence request." Reply Br. 4; see also
App. Br. 11.
The Examiner finds Wyatt discloses a user selecting sources for the
search. Ans. 7-8. The Examiner also finds the identification of relevant
sources is "at least implied or even inherent in online analytical processing
or data mining in order to know which date sources to get the data from."
Ans. 8.
Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. As discussed
earlier, during prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Am. Acad., 367
F.3d at 1364. Claim 6 does not recite any limitation directed to where the
contextual indication comes from. App. Br. 17-18 (Claims App'x).
Accordingly, we conclude the claim is broad enough to include contextual
information supplied by a user. Because Appellant concedes that a user
identifies the relevant data sources in Wyatt (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4), we
do not find Appellant's argument persuasive.
Additionally, Appellant has not identified any errors in the
Examiner's finding that the claim limitation is inherently disclosed in Wyatt.
"If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue - or, more
broadly, on a particular rejection-the Board will not, as a general matter,
7
Appeal2014-004526
Application 12/911,389
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-20.
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
8