Ex Parte Hao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

12924870 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/924,870 10/07/2010 MingC. Hao
56436 7590 06/17/2016
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.
82263488 8604
EXAMINER
CHAUDHURI, ANITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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 MING C. HAO, MANISH MARWAH, UMESHWAR DAYAL,
HALLDOR JANETZKO, RA TNESH KUMAR SHARMA, and
DANIELKEIM
Appeal2015-000028
Application 12/924,870
Technology Center 2100
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-21, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-000028
Application 12/924,870
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' present application relates to producing visual structures
representing motifs, which correspond to patterns in an input data set.
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as
follows:
1. A method comprising:
producing, by a system having a processor, visual
structures to represent corresponding motifs, wherein the motifs
correspond to repeating patterns in an input data set, wherein
sizes of the visual structures are based on values of a
characteristic associated with the motifs, and wherein a first of
the motifs is nested within a second of the motifs to represent a
hierarchical relationship of the patterns represented by the first
and second motifs;
presenting, by the system, the visual structures of
corresponding motifs for display in a visualization screen,
wherein the visualization screen depicts data in the input data
set with the visual structures overlapping parts of depicted data;
and
receiving, by the system, interactive input specifying
modification of a region containing motifs, wherein the
specified modification includes interactive distortion of the
visual structures in the region to change a size of the visual
structures in the region.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hao (US 7,716,227 Bl; May 11, 2010) and Tsuneta (US 2007/0274593
Al; Nov. 29, 2007). Ans. 2-6.
Claims 11, 12, 14-18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(a) and (e) as anticipated by Hao. Ans. 6-8.
2
Appeal2015-000028
Application 12/924,870
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hao and Modegi (US 5,784,200; July 21, 1998). Ans. 8-9.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hao, Tsuneta, and Modegi. Ans. 9-11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 1-3, 7-14, and
16-21. Except for the rejections of claims 4-6 and 15 as discussed below,
we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner with
respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 7-14, and 16-21. Appellants
persuade us the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4-6 and 15. We
highlight the following additional points.
Claims 1-3 and 7-10
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Hao
does not teach motifs that "correspond to repeating patterns in an input data
set." See App. Br. 6-8, Reply Br. 2--4. In particular, Appellants argue
Hao' s Figure 4 depicts distinct sales data in distinct geographic regions, not
repeating patterns. App. Br. 7.
We disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that while Hao
teaches distinct sales data in distinct regions, the data depicted in Figures 4
and 9 teaches or suggests repeating patterns. Ans. 12, Hao Fig. 4 (e.g.,
3
Appeal2015-000028
Application 12/924,870
element 110 includes data with consecutive same values (repeating pattern
in data set)). Appellants' argument is not persuasive because nothing in
Appellants' claims or Specification limits motifs or their corresponding
repeating patterns to data from a single source or data representing a single
region. To the contrary, the Specification discloses examples of motifs that
represent different time periods within a data set. See, e.g., Spec. iJ 7.
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Tsuneta does not teach a "nested hierarchy." See App. Br. 8, Reply Br. 4-6.
Specifically, Appellants argue Tsuneta's Fig. 5B teaches pattern 2 is
adjacent to pattern 1, not nested within it. Id. We disagree. Tsuneta Figure
5B teaches a data set that includes pattern 1 and pattern 2. Pattern 1 is a
sequence that starts with a column of large circles containing dots and ends
with a similar column. Tsuneta Fig. 5B. In between these large circles are
three columns of small circles containing horizontal lines. Id. Pattern 2 is a
sequence of three columns of small circles containing horizontal lines. Id.
Appellants are correct that the labeled instance of pattern 2 is adjacent to the
labeled instance of pattern 1, but pattern 2 also exists inside pattern 1. Id.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Tsuneta
teaches pattern 2 is "nested within" pattern 1 to "represent a hierarchical
relationship of the patterns," as required by claim 1.
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because Hao does not teach or suggest "interactive distortion." See App. Br.
8-10, Reply Br. 6-8. In particular, Appellants argue Hao teaches creating a
new window or replacing one window with another window as a result of
clicking bar 113 instead of interactively distorting the visual structures to
change a size of the visual structures. App. Br. 8-9 (citing Hao 8:39-60).
4
Appeal2015-000028
Application 12/924,870
The Examiner responds that Appellants' argument is not commensurate with
the scope of the claims.
The Board "determines the scope of claims in patent applications not
solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction 'in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art."' Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Jn re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The phrase "interactive distortion" is
not defined in the Specification. The only example of "interactive
distortion" in the Specification is a "motif distortion slider" which allows a
user to enlarge a motif area in the display shown in Figure 4. Spec. ,-i 14.
However, the Specification does not limit the term "interactive distortion" to
the disclosed example. To the contrary, the Specification states that:
In the foregoing description, numerous details are set forth to
provide an understanding of the subject disclosed herein.
Hov'l1ever, implementations may be practiced \'l1ithout some or
all of these details. Other implementations may include
modifications and variations from the details discussed above.
It is intended that the appended claims cover such modifications
and variations.
Spec. ,-i 44. In light of the Specification, we conclude the term "interactive
distortion" does not exclude first copying the visual structures, then
modifying them as taught by Hao. Accordingly, Appellants have not
persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Hao teaches the claimed
"interactive distortion."
Claims 4-6
Claim 4 recites:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
5
Appeal2015-000028
Application 12/924,870
dividing the input data set into plural parts;
assigning weights to the corresponding plural parts
according to densities of a particular type of motifs in the
corresponding plural parts; and
using the assigned weights to distort the corresponding
plural parts.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 because Hao
does not teach or suggest "assigning weights to the corresponding plural
parts according to densities of a particular type of motifs in the
corresponding plural parts." See App. Br. 10-11, Reply Br. 8-10.
Specifically, Appellants argue Hao does not teach "densities of a particular
type of motifs" or assigning a weight based on any identified densities. Id.
The Examiner finds Hao teaches that the number of nodes in regions
can vary. Ans. 14 (citing Hao Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds Hao
teaches an importance value is calculated for each region by aggregating the
importance values for its sub-regions. Ans. 14 (citing Hao 5:49-57, 6:5-11,
24-25, 7:13-21, 8:31-38).
On the record before us, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 4 and its dependent claims 5 and 6. As found by the
Examiner, Hao teaches calculating an importance value for a region based
on aggregating the importance values for its sub-regions. See id. However,
the Examiner has failed to explain how aggregating importance values for
sub-regions teaches or suggests "assigning weights to the corresponding
plural parts according to densities of a particular type of motifs in the
corresponding plural parts." Specifically, the Examiner has not explained
how the aggregate importance value for a region is assigned according to
densities of a particular type of motifs-the repeating patterns identified in
6
Appeal2015-000028
Application 12/924,870
claim 1. While the importance values may influence the display of the sales
data (see Hao 5:49-57, 6:5-11, 24-25, 7:13-21, 8:31-38), this influence is
not based in any apparent way on the patterns within the data (the claimed
"motifs"). Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 4-6.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites:
The article of claim 11, wherein distorting the regions
compnses:
dividing the data set into plural regions;
assigning weights to the plural regions based on numbers
of motifs in the corresponding plural regions; and
distort the plural regions using the weights, wherein
regions containing larger numbers of motifs are distorted more
than regions containing smaller numbers of motifs .
. il:..ppellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 for
substantially similar reasons as claims 4-6. See App. Br. 12-13, Reply Br.
15. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 for the
same reasons as claims 4-6. Moreover, the Examiner has not explained how
Hao' s importance values are "based on numbers of motifs [or repeating
patterns] in the corresponding plural regions."
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 2, 3, and 7-10, which were not argued separately. See
7
Appeal2015-000028
Application 12/924,870
App. Br. 6-10. Appellants argue the patentability of independent claims 11
and 19, and dependent claims 12-14, 16-18, 20, and 21 for the same reasons
as claim 1. See App. Br. 11-15. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 11-14 and 16-21 for the same reasons.
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4. We also do not sustain the
rejections of claims 5 and 6, which depend therefrom.
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 15.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 7-14,
and 16-21.
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4-6 and 15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8