Ex Parte Hao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

12795580 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/795,580 06/07/2010 Ming C. Hao 82259696 1221
56436 7590 11/28/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
WANG, JIN CHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2016 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 MING C. HAO, UMESHWAR DAYAL and
RAM RANGANATHAN
Appeal 2015-006914
Application 12/795,580
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 21—36.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed July 13, 2015), and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed January 26, 2015),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 12, 2015) and Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed August 29, 2014).
2 Claims 1—20 were cancelled previously.
Appeal 2015-006914
Application 12/795,580
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to methods for correlating temporal
data. Spec. 2:23—25.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 21.
21. A method comprising:
for each data source of a plurality of data sources,
identifying a plurality of attributes located within the given data
source, by a processor, where different attributes are located
within different data sources, each data source comprising a
plurality of measurements, each measurement for a
corresponding attribute at a measuring period of time;
receiving, by the processor, selection of a plurality of
selected attributes from the attributes identified within the data
sources;
generating, by the processor, a plurality of quantified
display attributes by combining the selected attributes according
to a combination criteria, the quantified display attributes
providing for comparisons of values of the selected attributes;
synchronizing, by the processor, timestamps of the
measurements for the selected attributes by adjusting the
timestamps so that the measurements taken at different times and
with same measuring periods of time appear at a same temporal
location on a timeline; and
displaying, by the processor, a grid of graphical cells
corresponding to and graphically representing the quantified
display attributes, the grid having a first axis and a second axis,
the first axis corresponding to the selected attributes, the second
axis corresponding to the timeline, each graphical cell
representing a value of one of the selected attributes at a time on
the timeline.
REFERENCES
Rao (“Rao ’056”) US 6,581,056 B1 June 17, 2003
2
Appeal 2015-006914
Application 12/795,580
Rao (“Rao ‘312”)
Stolte
Hanrahan
Malkin (“Malkin ’808”)
Malkin (“Malkin ’568”)
Hao (“Hao ’664”)
Hao (“Hao ’203”)
US 6,628,312 B1
US 2004/0243593
US 2006/0206512
US 2008/0046808
US 2008/0235568
US 2009/0033664
US 7,760,203 B1
Sept. 30, 2003
A1 Dec. 2, 2004
A1 Sept. 14, 2006
A1 Feb. 21,2008
A1 Sept. 25, 2008
A1 Feb. 5, 2009
July 20, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 21—36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hanrahan, Hao ’664, Stolte, Rao ’056, Rao ’312, Malkin ’568, and
Malkin ’808. Final Act. 4—30.
Claims 21—36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Hao ’203. Final Act. 31—38.
ISSUE
With respect to the rejection of claims 21—36, the issue is whether the
Examiner erred in finding Hanrahan or Hao ’664 teaches “synchronizing . . .
timestamps ... by adjusting the timestamps so that the measurements taken
at different times . . . appear at a same temporal location on a timeline.”
ANALYSIS
Claims 21—36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over
Hanrahan, Hao ’664, Stolte, Rao ’056, Rao ’312, Malkin ’568, and
Malkin ’808
Appellants argue that neither Hanrahan, nor Hao ‘664, teaches
adjusting measurement timestamps taken at different times as recited in
independent claim 21. App. Br. 4—6; Reply Br. 2-4. Specifically,
3
Appeal 2015-006914
Application 12/795,580
Appellants argue that Hanrahan and Hao ’664 fail to teach altering the
measurements’ timestamps through synchronization, but instead teach
aggregating or collapsing multiple measurements taken at different times to
the same temporal location on a timeline. App. Br. 4—6 (citing Hanrahan ||
49-50, 77-80, 183, 304, Figs. 10A, 14, 19; Hao ’664 129, Figs. 5A, 6A);
Reply Br. 2-A.
We disagree with Appellants. Claim 21 recites “synchronizing, by the
processor, timestamps of the measurements for the selected attributes by
adjusting the timestamps so that the measurements taken at different times
and with same measuring periods of time appear at a same temporal location
on a timeline.” As such, claim 21 defines “synchronizing” timestamps to
require “adjusting” timestamps. Claim 21 further defines “adjusting the
timestamps” as taking timestamps of measurements taken at different times
and having the timestamped measurements “appear at the same temporal
location on a timeline.” Thus, according to the intrinsic evidence provided
in claim 21, “adjusting the timestamps” means taking different timestamped
measurements and having the measurements appear at the same temporal
location on a timeline. This construction is consistent with the Specification,
which describes the synchronization process as adjusting the timestamps of
various measurements by displaying the measurements at the same location
on a timeline. Spec. 7:13—21, Fig. 2. Appellants argue that “adjusting the
timestamps” requires altering the timestamps so that the timestamps all read
the same time; however, Appellants’ extrinsic evidence of the plain and
ordinary meaning of “adjusting the timestamps” is inconsistent with the
intrinsic evidence provided in claim 21 and the Specification, and,
accordingly, we construe this limitation according to the intrinsic
4
Appeal 2015-006914
Application 12/795,580
evidence.3,4 See App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2-4. Accordingly, based
upon the intrinsic evidence provided in claim 21 and the Specification, the
definition “adjusting the timestamps” merely requires displaying
measurements taken at different times at the same temporal location on a
timeline.
The Examiner finds that Hanrahan teaches aggregating timestamps of
measurements taken at different times by hierarchically compressing the
timestamps of the measurements so that the timestamped measurements
appear at the same temporal location on a timeline. Final Act. 10—11 (citing
Hanrahan 1149-50, 77-80, 183, 304, Figs. 10A, 10B, 14, 19); Ans. 5-11.
The Examiner finds that the measurements and their corresponding
timestamps for days within a given month are adjusted by being aggregated
and graphically shown at a single location on a timeline for the month,
months within a quarter, or quarters within a year, etc. See Final Act. 10-
11; Ans. 5—11; see also Hanrahan H 77—80; Figs. 3, 16. The Examiner finds
that these teachings of Hanrahan are encompassed by the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “adjusting the timestamps,” as discussed above.
Accordingly, Hanrahan teaches “adjusting the timestamps [by aggregation]
so that the measurements taken at different time[s] and with same measuring
periods of time appear at the same temporal location on a timeline,” as
required by claim 21. Final Act. 10.
3 “[EJxtrinsic evidence is not irrelevant, but has relatively little probative
value in view of the prevailing intrinsic evidence.” Tempo Lighting, Inc. v.
Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
4 Extrinsic evidence may be considered during claim construction; however,
extrinsic evidence should not be “used to contradict claim meaning that is
unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.” Phillips v. A WII, Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc).
5
Appeal 2015-006914
Application 12/795,580
Similarly, the Examiner finds that Hao ’664 teaches “adjusting the
timestamp,” because Hao ’664 teaches collapsing timestamped
measurements taken at different times and displaying them at a single
temporal location on a timeline. Final Act. 13—14 (citing Hao ’664 129,
Figs. 5A—5B, 6A—6C). The Examiner finds that the measurements and their
corresponding timestamps for minutes within a given day or days within a
month are adjusted by being collapsed into a single location on a timeline.
Id. at 14. As such, Hao ’664 teaches collapsing timestamped measurements
in the same way that Hanrahan teaches aggregating measurements by
displaying the measurements at a single temporal location on a timeline.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s findings because collapsing
timestamped measurements, like the aggregation of timestamps in Hanrahan,
teaches “adjusting the timestamps” by displaying measurements taken at
different times at the same temporal location on a timeline, as required by
claim 21. See id.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 21. Appellants argue that dependent claims 22—36 are patentable for
the same reasons as their independent claim. App. Br. 3. As such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons discussed
above in our analysis of claim 21.
Claims 21—36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Hao ’203
The Examiner finds Hao ’203 anticipates claims 21—36. Final Act.
31—38. Appellants do not argue separately the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 21—36 as being anticipated by Hao ’203. See App. Br. 3; see also
6
Appeal 2015-006914
Application 12/795,580
Ans. 12. Appellants’ arguments regarding the obviousness rejection based
upon the combination of Hanrahan, Hao ’664, Stolte, Rao ’056, Rao ’312,
Malkin ’568, and Malkin ’808 do not apply to the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection based upon Hao ’203 as it based upon different evidence.
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s anticipatory rejection of
claims 21—36.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 21—36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hanrahan, Hao ’664, Stolte, Rao ’056,
Rao ’312, Malkin ’568, and Malkin ’808.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 21—36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Hao ’203.
DECISION
To summarize, the rejections of claims 21—36 are affirmed.
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
7