Ex Parte Hadar et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 30, 201913223413 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/223,413 09/01/2011 Eitan Hadar 131406 7590 06/03/2019 Gilliam IP PLLC (Broadcom) 7200 N. Mopac Suite 440 Austin, TX 78731 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. 104.20111040 7344 EXAMINER KIM,PAUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2019 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): uspto@gilliamip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EITAN HADAR, MEIRA LEVY, and IRIT HADAR Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 22, 25, and 27-33, which are all the claims pending in this application. 1 Claims 2, 5, 10, 13-16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 26 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is CA, Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Introduction Appellants' claimed invention relates "to knowledge management systems." Spec. ,r 1. Exemplary Claim 1. A system comprising: a computer processor; and a machine-readable medium having program code executable by the processor to cause the system to, based on a receipt of a knowledge nugget which comprises information related to computer system software or to a software architecture, [L 1] determine whether to store the knowledge nugget in a first database or a second database based, at least in part, on whether a creator of the knowledge nugget is a privileged user, wherein the knowledge nugget also comprises an identification of the creator of the knowledge nugget; [L2] store the knowledge nugget in the first database based on a determination that the creator of the knowledge nugget is not a privileged user; allocate a plurality of persons to the knowledge nugget for analysis; analyze at least one of statistical evaluation and polling across the plurality of persons corresponding to the knowledge nugget, wherein the statistical evaluation comprises evaluation of at least one of ratings assigned to the knowledge nugget by 2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed June 16, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed Sept. 29, 2017 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer, mailed Jan. 30, 2018 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief, filed Mar. 30, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 the plurality of persons and access statistics of the knowledge nugget by the plurality of persons; and [L3] migrate the knowledge nugget from the first database to the second database based, at least in part, on the analysis. App. Br. 18, "Claims Appendix." (Emphasis added regarding the contested limitations under §I03(a)). Rejections A. Claims 1, 19, and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with the written description requirement. 3 B. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 11, 17, 19, 22, 25, and 27-33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Kraus et al. (US 2009/0063953 Al, published Mar. 5, 2009) (hereinafter "Kraus"), Chen et al. (US 6,976,023 B2, filed Apr. 23, 2002) (hereinafter "Chen"), Bechtel et al. (US 2009/0282346 Al, published Nov. 12, 2009) (hereinafter "Bechtel"), and Van Riel (US 8,683,342 B2, filed Feb. 28, 2007). C. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Kraus, Chen, Bechtel, Van Riel, and Wormley et al. (US 2013/0124546 Al; pub. May 16, 2013) (hereinafter "Wormley"). 3 The Examiner withdrew Rejection A of claims 28 and 29, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in the Answer (2), but did not withdraw Rejection A of claims 1, 19, and 27. 3 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 D. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Kraus, Chen, Bechtel, Van Riel, and Sundararajan et al. (US 2005/0203913 Al; pub. Sept. 15, 2005) (hereinafter "Sundararajan"). Issues on Appeal 1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 19, and 2 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement? 2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 22, 25, and 27-33 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being obvious over the cited combinations of references? ANALYSIS We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence presented. To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). For at least the reasons discussed below, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and legal conclusions, as set forth in the Final Action and Answer. In our analysis below, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis. 4 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 Rejection A of Independent Claims 1, 19, and 27 Issue: Does the original Specification provide sufficient written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, to show possession of the claimed invention? The Examiner finds the Specification fails to provide written description support for the following claim limitations: "store the knowledge nugget in the first database based on a determination that the creator of the knowledge nugget is not a privileged user," "allocate a plurality of persons to the knowledge nugget for analysis," and "migrat[ing] the knowledge nugget from the first database to the second database based, at least in part, on the analysis." Claim 1 (emphasis added); see also Final Act. 3. Our reviewing court guides the written description "must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed." Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane) (citation and quotations omitted). The test is whether the disclosure "conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Id. "[A]ctual 'possession' or reduction to practice outside of the specification is not enough. Rather, ... it is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession." Id. at 1352; see also PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306--07 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that§ 112, ,r 1 "requires that the written description actually or inherently disclose the claim element"). Appellants contend that the Specification provides adequate support for claims 1, 19, and 27 in paragraphs 13, 19, 21, 26, 32 and 33. App. Br. 4-- 9. Specifically, Appellants contend: 5 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 The present Application proposes techniques for determining whether to store a knowledge nugget in a temporary storage location for further analysis or in a permanent storage location, storage in which signifies that the knowledge nugget has been verified/approved for permanent retention. 4 One of the techniques is determining a type of user who created the knowledge nugget; the Application states, "Should the user who inserted the knowledge nugget be a privileged user (e.g. the lead architect of the related product or a product related to the new protocol standard), the knowledge nugget can be automatically approved," meaning that the knowledge nugget is automatically stored in the permanent database. 5 App. Br. 8. Appellants further explain: Furthermore, the Application states, "For example, a knowledge nugget created by the acting software architect or lead designer can be approved automatically, whereas a contribution of a novice software architect knowledge can be heavily analyzed and scrutinized before being retained as a knowledge nugget in a permanent database. " 6 This example illustrates the feature at issue in claim 1. In claim 1, the knowledge nugget is stored in a first database (i.e. a location where the "knowledge can be heavily analyzed and scrutinized before being retained as a knowledge nugget in a permanent database"7) if the creator of the nugget is not a privileged user (i.e. is a "novice software architect" or is not an "acting software architect or lead designer"8). App. Br. 8 (emphasis added). 4 Specification ,r 13. 5 Id., ,I 26. 6 Id., ,I 13. 7 Id. s Id. 6 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner responds in the Answer, and finds paragraphs 13, 19, 21, 26, 32, and 33 of the Specification (as cited in support by Appellants), fail to disclose the negative limitation of storing of the knowledge nugget "based on a determination that the creator of the knowledge nugget is not a privileged user," as recited in independent claim 1, and also recited in remaining independent claims 19 and 27 using identical or similar language. Ans. 3 ( emphasis added). Specifically, the Examiner finds: As per the claimed feature of "store the knowledge nugget in the first database based on a determination that the creator of the knowledge nugget is not a privileged user," it is noted that the Specification fails to provide support or describe said feature in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Ans. 3 (emphasis added). The Examiner explains: Specifically, it is noted the Specification fails to disclose or provide for the negative limitation of storing a knowledge nugget when the creator of the knowledge nugget is not a privileged user. While paragraph [0026] of the Specification discloses that "[ s ]hould the user who inserted the knowledge nugget be a privileged user ( e.g. the lead architect of the related product or a product related to the new protocol standard), the knowledge nugget can be automatically approved," the Specification fails to disclose the process when the user is not a privileged user. Ans. 3 (emphasis added). 7 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 We focus our analysis on the negative limitation added by amendment during prosecution. Regarding the negative limitation of "store the knowledge nugget in the first database based on a determination that the creator of the knowledge nugget is not a privileged user" ( claim 1 ( emphasis added)), we agree with the Examiner's findings because Appellants' cited support in the Specification (see App. Br. 8, referring particularly to ,r,r 13, 26, 33, footnotes 3-8), does not identify a description of "a reason to exclude the relevant limitation." Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same material."). See also MPEP § 2173.0S(i) ("Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure .... The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion."). We note the aforementioned negative limitation recited in claim 1 is recited in similar form having commensurate scope in remaining independent claims 19 and 27. Based upon our review of Appellants' Specification, we also find no error regarding the Examiner's finding of insufficient written description support for the remaining claim 1 limitations identified by the Examiner (i.e., "allocate a plurality of persons to the knowledge nugget for analysis"; and "migrate the knowledge nugget from the first database to the second database based, at least in part, on the analysis."). Final Act. 7. 8 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 We emphasize that the court in Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc. explained that a description in the Specification which merely renders obvious the invention claimed does not satisfy the written description requirement: it is "not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee's device from the teachings of the disclosure. . . . Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device." . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) ( emphasis added). 9 This guidance is applicable here. For at least the aforementioned reasons, and on this record, we find Appellants have not met their burden of persuasion to show error in the Examiner's finding of a lack of written description support for independent claims 1, 19, and 27. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's Rejection A under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, of independent claims 1, 19, and 27. 9 "Although many original claims will satisfy the written description requirement" Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349, the Patent Rules require: [ t ]he claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(l) (emphasis added). 9 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 Rejection B of Representative Independent Claim 1 Issue: Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err by finding Kraus, Chen, Bechtel, and Van Riel collectively teach or suggest the contested limitations L 1, L2, and L3: [L 1] determine whether to store the knowledge nugget in a first database or a second database based, at least in part, on whether a creator of the knowledge nugget is a privileged user; [L2] store the knowledge nugget in the first database based on a determination that the creator of the knowledge nugget is not a privileged user; [and] [L3] migrate the knowledge nugget from the first database to the second database based, at least in part, on the analysis within the meaning of representative claim 1 ?10 App. Br. 11-15 (contested limitations L 1-L3 emphasized). Claim Construction As an initial matter of claim construction, we tum to Appellants' Specification for context: "An architecture knowledge nugget is any piece of information or data relating to computer system software or hardware architecture." Spec. ,r 10. Accordingly, we broadly but reasonably interpret a "knowledge nugget" as recited in Appellants' claims as "any piece of information or data relating to computer system software or hardware architecture." Id. ( emphasis added). See supra, n.10. 10 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 10 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 As an additional matter regarding the claim construction of limitation L2 ("store the knowledge nugget in the first database based on a determination that the creator of the knowledge nugget is not a privileged user"- claim 1 ( emphasis added)), a question arises with respect to Rejection B, under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a), as to whether the recited negative limitation, not present in the original claims, and unsupported in the original Specification, should be accorded any patentable weight. In the event of an appeal, in which our reviewing court may decide to give the negative limitation patentable weight, we consider it (i.e., giving it patentable weight) for the purpose of our analysis of the Examiner's Rejection B under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a). Limitations LI and L2 of Independent Claim 1 under Rejection B Appellants' Contentions Regarding limitations LI and L2 of claim 1, Appellants argue: "[t]he cited art fails to disclose selecting a storage location for data based on a type of user." App. Br. 11. Appellants focus their arguments on the "privileged user" recited in claim 1. Id. Specifically, Appellants contend that claim 1: is concerned with deciding between two storage locations based on a type or status of a user. Claim 1 exploits the type of a creator of a knowledge nugget as a shortcut to ascertaining the quality of a knowledge nugget, which affects whether a knowledge nugget is stored in a first database for further analysis or in a second database. The cited art completely fails to disclose selecting between two storage locations based on a type of user. Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that claim 1 can reasonably be interpreted as writing a knowledge nugget to a 11 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 first database based on determining that a user does not have access privileges for a second database, the cited art still fails to disclose the claim elements interpreted in this manner. Kraus and Chen merely disclose determining whether a user can access an application function, such as a database, based on privileges assigned to a user. 11 If a user has the correct privileges, a user can perform an application function, such as create and write data to a library. 12 There is no disclosure in either Kraus or Chen of storing data in a first database based on determining that the user does not have privileges for a second database. Rather, if a user does not have the requisite permissions, the operation is simply not allowed. 13 App. Br. 12-13 (emphasis added). The Examiner's Answer The Examiner disagrees. In response, the Examiner further explains the basis for the rejection: Kraus is directed to the invention of collaborative web page authoring wherein a website is editable by an author and by others the author lets access the site. Specifically, Kraus discloses that access and authorization are controlled by accessing specific properties for the ACL [(Access Control List)] of users. See Kraus, [0459]. Kraus fails to expressly disclose the feature of [L2] "store the knowledge nugget in the first database based on a determination that the creator of the knowledge nugget is not a privileged user." Chen is directed to the invention of a system for configurable binding of access control lists in a content management system. Specifically, Chen discloses that "an access control model is implemented by which one or more rules, associated with a controlled entity, authorizes user operation(s) on the bound entity, i.e. specifies who (users/groups/public) can perform what functions on the 11 Kraus ,r 459; Chen, col. 7, 11. 50-51. 12 Chen col. 6, Table IV. 13 Id., col. 7, 11. 51-52. 12 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 controlled entity." See Chen, column 12, lines 51-67. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the prior art of Kraus with that of Chen for the predictable result of a system wherein storage access to a permanent or a transient database (i.e. authorized user operations) may be provided to a specific user (i.e. a non- privileged user) via an ACL model. Ans. 4--6 ( emphasis added). Regarding limitation L 1, we emphasize Appellants' use of alternative "OR" language within the disputed limitation: [L 1] determine whether to store the knowledge nugget in a first database or a second database based, at least in part, on whether a creator of the knowledge nugget is a privileged user; Claim 1 ( emphasis added). Our reviewing court guides that when a claim covers several alternatives, the claim may be unpatentable if any of the alternatives within the scope of the claim are taught by the prior art. See Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d at 1352). This guidance is applicable here. Given the Appellants' use of the alternative "or" language regarding storing "the knowledge nugget in a first database or a second database" ( claim 1) on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding contested limitation L 1 of claim 1. See Final Act. 4, citing to Kraus at Figures 1 and 3, paragraph 452 (first database), and Chen col. 12, 11. 51---67 (1. 51 describes a database 30 (i.e., a second database)). 13 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 Turning to the evidence, we understand the Examiner's mapping from claim limitation LI to the corresponding feature(s) found in the cited references, as follows: (1) The Examiner reads the LI language "determine whether to store the knowledge nugget in a first database" on Kraus' s "relational database" at paragraph 452. Claim 1 ( emphasis added). See also Final Act. 4. (2) The Examiner reads the LI term "second database" on Chen's "database 30" at column 12, line 51. Claim 1 (emphasis added). See also Final Act. 4. (3) The Examiner reads the LI claim 1 language "based, at least in part, on whether a creator of the knowledge nugget is a privileged user" on Chen's column 12, lines 53---61: If so, then in step 96 the access control list 44 for the specific user data item 42 is checked to determine if this user is entitled to access. If not, in step 98 access is denied. If so, in step 100 access is granted according to privileges of the privileges set 48, to read, delete, or update. Chen, col. 12, 11. 53---61. We note Chen's access system allows users to read, write (i.e., update), and delete according to access privileges that are stored in Access Control List 44 (ACL). See Chen, col. 12, 11. 51-67. We observe Kraus (i1 459) cumulatively describes user authentication or privileges: The auth layer manages both authentication and authorization. Authentication is handled by matching a user against a particular page in the wiki. Authorization is handled by accessing specific properties (e.g. sys/readUsers for the ACL of users who are allowed to read the page). Kraus ,r 459 ( emphasis added). 14 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, and on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's underlying factual findings for limitation L 1 of claim 1. Limitation L2 of Independent Claim 1 under Rejection B Further regarding limitation L2, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion that Chen's access control list, in combination with the teachings and suggestion of Kraus, Bechtel, and Van Riel, renders obvious claim 1 limitation L2 which stores the "knowledge nugget in the first database based on a determination that the creator of the knowledge nugget is not a privileged user." See Final Act. 4, Ans. 4--5. Simply put, we find Chen's access control list suggests 14 privileged access ( or no access if no privilege), which we find could be similarly applied to the "creator" of the stored data (i.e., "knowledge nugget") with predictable results. 15 Further regarding claim 1, limitation L2, we agree with the Examiner's broad but reasonable claim interpretation: 16 14 Our reviewing court guides: "'the question under 35 USC 103 is not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made."' Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis added); see also MPEP § 2123. 15 "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. 16 See supra, n.10. 15 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 The claims do not positively recite or provide for the feature wherein a knowledge nugget is stored in a second database when the user [(i.e., "creator")] is found to be a privileged user. The claims only provide for the storage of a knowledge nugget into a second database via the recited migration step ("migrate the knowledge nugget from the first database to the second database"). Ans. 6. Limitation L3 of Independent Claim 1 under Rejection B [L3] migrate the knowledge nugget from the first database to the second database based, at least in part, on the analysis. Claim 1. Regarding limitation L3 of claim 1, Appellants argue: "[t]he cited art fails to disclose migrating data to a different storage location based on a statistical evaluation and polling of persons related to the data." App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellants contend: The Examiner asserts that Van Riel discloses migrating a knowledge nugget from the first database to the second database based on the analysis. Specifically, the Examiner states, "Van Riel discloses that wiki content may be propagated to data storage upon approval of said content .... " 17 However, there is no disclosure in Van Riel of approving wiki content or propagating data in response to approval. Van Riel discloses sharing data between wiki systems in response to a first wiki system receiving an indication of desired data. App. Br. 14 (emphasis added). Appellants further urge: Kraus, Chen, and Bechtel fail to disclose the element at issue. [J Appellant also notes that Kraus, Chen, and Bechtel fail to cure 17 Final Act. 6. 16 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 the deficiencies of Van Riel outlined above. The disclosures of Kraus and Chen are concerned with user privileges in a collaborative editing environment and are wholly unconcerned with data migration. Bechtel discloses analyzing data based on analysis such as user reviews. However, as with Kraus and Chen, Bechtel wholly fails to disclose migration of data, and as a result, there is no disclosure of migrating data in response to such analysis. App. Br. 15. In response, the Examiner further explains the basis for the rejection. As per the argued features directed to statistical evaluation and pooling of persons related to the data, the Examiner finds Bechtel teaches or suggests the claim 1 "analyze" limitation: analyze at least one of statistical evaluation and polling across the plurality of persons corresponding to the knowledge nugget, wherein the statistical evaluation comprises evaluation of at least one of ratings assigned to the knowledge nugget by the plurality of persons and access statistics of the knowledge nugget by the plurality of persons Claim 1 (emphasis added); see Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds Bechtel, paragraph 41, teaches a collaborative environment in which users may rate data items. Id. Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the Examiner that given that Bechtel is directed to a collaborative system for rating data items based upon authorized users or groups of users, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the prior art combination of Kraus and Chen with that of Bechtel for the predictable result of a system wherein authorized users may be allocated to and allowed to review data items via the ACL system of Chen. Ans. 7. 17 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 Based upon our review of the record, we also agree with the Examiner that given Van Riel discloses "wiki" content that may be propagated to data storage upon approval of the content (i.e., migrated to a second database based in part on the analysis), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the prior art combination of Kraus, Chen, and Bechtel for the predictable result [ ofJ a collaborative system wherein data items[, as] evaluated based upon the rating assigned the data nuggets (as disclosed by Bechtel)[,] may be migrated to a relational database of a second wiki system ( as disclosed by Van Riel) based upon said ratings. Ans. 8. Moreover, in reviewing the record, we find Appellants are arguing the references separately. 18 The Examiner relies upon Van Riel at column 5, lines 16-34, for teaching or suggesting authentication of "wiki" users to share or update the content database in an online collaborative environment, thus rendering obvious the contested limitation: [L3] migrate the knowledge nugget from the first database to the second database based, at least in part, on the analysis, of claim 1. See Final Act. 5. For at least the aforementioned reasons, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, Appellants have not persuaded of us of error 18 Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is based upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). 18 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 regarding the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness for Rejection B of independent representative claim 1. See Final Act. 4--7, Ans. 4--8. Grouped claims 3, 4, 6-8, 11, 17, 19, 22, 25, and 27-33 (also rejected under Rejection Band not argued separately) fall with representative claim I. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Rejection C of Claim 12 and Rejection D of Claim 9 Rejections C and D of dependent claims 12, and 9, respectively, are not substantively argued separately under our procedural rule. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Arguments not made are waived. CONCLUSIONS Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, and on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's finding of insufficient written description support for independent claims 1, 19, and 2 7. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, and on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness for all claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 22, 25, and 27-33 on appeal. 19 Appeal2018-004622 Application 13/223,413 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 19, and 27 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (written description). We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 22, 25, and 27-33 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED 20 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation