Ex Parte Graupner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201612835044 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/835,044 07/13/2010 Sven Graupner 56436 7590 09/28/2016 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. 82262543 9569 EXAMINER LINDSEY III, JOHNATHAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2016 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 SEAN GRAUPNER, HAMID REZA MOTAHARI NEZHAD, and SUJOYBASU Appeal2014-006110 Application 12/835,044 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-10 and 13-17. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a natural language electronic document; determining that the received natural language electronic document is a specific type of natural language electronic document; Appeal2014-006110 Application 12/835,044 identifying, from among multiple different frameworks that specify corresponding structural conventions according to which natural language documents are arranged, a specific framework as specifying a structural convention for the specific type of natural language electronic document, wherein the multiple different frameworks correspond to respective multiple different types of natural language electronic documents; accessing, from computer memory storage, the identified framework; based on the structural convention according to which the received natural language document is arranged specified in the accessed identified framework, identifying, using one or more processing elements, concepts expressed within the received natural language electronic document and relationships between certain ones of the expressed concepts; converting, using the one or more processing elements, the identified concepts expressed within the received natural language electronic document and the identified relationships therebetween into a template including computer-understandable code; and storing the template including computer-understandable code in computer memory storage. Appellants appeal the following rejection: 1. Claims 1-10 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Graupner (Graupner et al., Making Processes from Best Practice Frameworks Actionable, 3rd Business-driven IT Management, Hofstra University (2009)) and Jagannathan (US 2010/0250236 Al, pub. Sept. 30, 2010). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the prior art does not disclose identifying a specific framework that specifies a corresponding 2 Appeal2014-006110 Application 12/835,044 structural convention according to which the document is arranged from among multiple different frameworks? ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the references do not disclose a framework as recited in the appealed claims. Appellants' Specification discloses a method in which the type of electronic document is first determined, then the framework that specifies a structural convention for the type of natural language electronic document is assessed (Spec. i-f 42). Examples of document types are spreadsheets and word processing documents. The framework specifies the structural convention according to which the determined type of natural language electronic document is arranged. As an example, the Appellants provide Figure 4A that depicts a spreadsheet document type that uses a certain row and column structure that includes nested tasks to represent the tasks to be performed and relationships there between (Spec. i-f 38). Figure 4B of the present application depicts a framework 440 that specifies a structural convention according to which the document is arranged as represented by the spreadsheet depicted in Figure 4A. The framework 440 allows the computing system to identify information within, and extract information from, any document that, like the spreadsheet 400 depicted in Figure 4A, includes the same row and column structure that includes nested tasks to represent the tasks performed and relationships therebetween. 3 Appeal2014-006110 Application 12/835,044 The Examiner, recognizing that Graupner does not disclose the steps of determining the document type and identifying the framework from multiple frameworks, relies on paragraphs 25-30, 35 and 36 of Jagannathan. Jagannathan discloses a method that allows documents such as spreadsheets, images and datasets to be submitted to an abstraction application which determines the document type based on identifying keywords, and, based on abstraction rules corresponding to the document type, extracts data from the document (Spec. i-f 27). Document types include discharge summary, history and physical consultation, laboratory results, admissions, etc. Although, Jagannathan does disclose determining a document type, we agree with Appellants that Jagannathan does not disclose identifying a framework that specifies corresponding structural conventions to which the document is arranged. All that is disclosed by Jagannathan is that document ' • 1 , • ..,. 1 • 1 1 1 1 ' ' ' 1 1• ' 1ypes are 10enunea usmg a Keywora ana aarn are exuac1ea accoramg w abstraction rules. Jagannathan does not disclose that the abstraction rules relate to how the document is arranged. Therefore, we disagree with the Examiner that the abstraction rules are frameworks as required by claim 1. In the Answer, the Examiner argues that Graupner discloses templates that define best practice frameworks which guide the overall organization of work in a business. We agree with the Appellants that it is unclear how this disclosure of Graupner relates to identifying different frameworks from multiple frameworks that specify corresponding structural convention according to how a document is arranged. In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to the 4 Appeal2014-006110 Application 12/835,044 remaining claims because each of these claims requires the subject matter we have found lacking in the prior art. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation