Ex Parte Haub et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 16, 201511690911 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/690,911 03/26/2007 Andreas Peter Haub 6150-03700 4771 7590 06/16/2015 Jeffrey C. Hood Meyertons Hood Kivlin Kowert & Goetzel PC P.O. Box 398 Austin, TX 78767-0398 EXAMINER KEATON, SHERROD L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/16/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANDREAS PETER HAUB, STEFAN ROMAINCZYK, RALF DEININGER, HELMUT HELPENSTEIN, ANDREAS KRANTZ, MYRLE H. KRANTZ, and EVA WOLPERS ____________________ Appeal 2012-011906 Application 11/690,911 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 21–39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is National Instruments Corporation. 2 Our Decision refers to the Appeal Brief filed March 22, 2012 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 20, 2012 (“Ans.”), the Reply Brief filed Aug. 20, 2012 (“Reply Br.”), the Non-Final Rejection mailed Sept. 27, 2011 (“Non-Final”), and the Specification filed March 26, 2007 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-011906 Application 11/690,911 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to technical data management (TDM) for managing measurement data in an enterprise computing system. Spec. Abstract, Fig. 2. Data files store measurement data along with their respective meta-data. Spec. ¶ 7. The meta-data may describe a data model defining the structure of data items, their attributes, and relationships between different data items. Spec. ¶ 100. Importantly, the meta-data is also included in an index. Spec. ¶¶ 23, 79, 116. A user may search the index for possible attribute values for a particular measurement data attribute, and the results of this search may be used as search criteria to retrieve the desired measurement data. Id. Accordingly, there is no need to open and read a data file in the search process in order to determine if it contains measurement data of interest to the user. Spec. ¶ 79. Claim 21, reproduced below with disputed language emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 21. A computer-accessible memory medium storing program instructions executable to: create an index of a plurality of measurement data files, wherein each measurement data file includes a plurality of measurements, wherein each measurement includes measurement data and meta-data describing attributes and attribute values of the measurement data, wherein creating the index comprises adding the meta-data from the measurement data files to the index; receive user input specifying a particular measurement data attribute to be used in search criteria for desired measurement data, wherein the search criteria also requires an attribute value for the measurement data attribute; Appeal 2012-011906 Application 11/690,911 3 search the index to find a plurality of possible attribute values for the particular measurement data attribute to be used in the search criteria, wherein each of the possible attribute values matches one or more of the indexed measurements and is found by retrieving the meta-data of the one or more measurements from the index; display the plurality of possible attribute values for the particular measurement data attribute in response to said searching; receive user input selecting a particular attribute value from the displayed plurality of possible attribute values; complete the search criteria by including the particular attribute value in the search criteria in response to the user input selecting the particular attribute value; and search for the desired measurement data using the completed search criteria, wherein said searching for the desired measurement data uses the particular measurement data attribute and the particular attribute value. REJECTION Claims 21–39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Laborde (US 7,191,184 B2, issued March 13, 2007), Cars (Cars.com, Search for a Car, pp. 1–4, 1998–2009), and Green (US 6,041,310, issued March 21, 2000). Non-Final 2–9. PRINCIPLES OF LAW Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary Appeal 2012-011906 Application 11/690,911 4 indicia of nonobviousness.” (Quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). ANALYSIS Claim 21 The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is based on the combination of Laborde, Cars, and Green. Appellants and the Examiner agree Laborde fails to teach the disputed limitation of claim 21. App. Br. 8; Non-Final 3. According to Appellants, Cars is a series of screen shots from the graphical user interface (GUI) of the cars.com website which allows the user to search for a car. App. Br. 10–11. The user can select a “Make”, which Appellants state the Examiner has interpreted as the “particular measurement data attribute” recited in claim 21. Id. In response to the user selecting the “Make” the GUI populates the “Model” field with a list of models as the “possible attribute values” recited in claim 21. Id. Insofar as concerns these Appeal 2012-011906 Application 11/690,911 5 teachings, the Examiner does not dispute Appellants’ characterization of Cars. Appellants argue that, rather than searching an index to find a set of possible models that can vary depending upon meta-data in the index, Cars simply populates the “Model” field with a fixed list of models corresponding to the selected make, which does not require searching an index. App. Br. 10–11. Appellants argue Cars contains no teaching of an index which includes meta-data describing attributes and attribute values or searching such an index to find the list of models, “wherein each of the possible attribute values [e.g., models] matches one or more of the indexed measurements and is found by retrieving the meta-data of the one or more measurements from the index” as claimed. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner acknowledges Cars does not teach the functionality of providing only matched data. Ans. 6–7. In the claimed invention, possible attribute values found in the index search necessarily have corresponding measurement data because the meta-data in the index was derived from a measurement data file. See claim 21, first element. Therefore, as the disputed limitation states, each possible attribute value matches an indexed measurement. Concerning Green, the Examiner cites to column 9, lines 5–14 of Green, which states: A somewhat different screen will be displayed at this point if some other selection has been made at the main menu. For example, if a foreign car manufacturer was selected and that manufacturer did not have a wagon in its line, then no wagon selection would be offered. In other words, each screen at this level is customized for the offerings of the particular category of vehicle selected above. The selection could be Appeal 2012-011906 Application 11/690,911 6 further customized for the type of vehicles carried by a particular dealership. If a dealership carries no foreign car lines, then there may be no foreign car selection available. Ans. 12–14. The Examiner finds, because a selection may result in no car model being shown, Green could not be “hard-coded” to display a set of images based on input from the previous screen, as Appellants contend. Id. Based on this observation, the Examiner concludes Green must search an index to determine what each dealership has to offer and provides those options to the user. Id. Conversely, Appellants argue Green determines the options the user selected in the previous screen, and then determines a fixed set of vehicles to display in the current screen based on these options, without searching any index. App. Br. 12–13 citing Green, col. 8, l. 56 – col. 9, l. 14, Reply Br. 5. We find Green fails to teach the disputed limitation of claim 21. The Examiner has not sufficiently identified a teaching or suggestion in Green that addresses searching of indexes for possible attribute values, and then using a selected attribute value to search for measurement data, as claimed. The possibility that Green may return no record for a vehicle search lends support to Appellants’ position that the reference does not first search an index for meta-data attributes before searching for desired measurement data. Claim 21 recites the possible attribute values relate to matching indexed measurements, so a search of the desired measurement data using attribute values found by searching the index will necessarily return data. The Examiner has thus failed to carry the burden of establishing the prima facie case of obviousness, and we do not sustain the rejection. Appeal 2012-011906 Application 11/690,911 7 Remaining Claims For similar reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 32 and 39. As to all remaining claims depend from independent claims 21, 32, or 39, we likewise do not sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons. Remaining Arguments As our stated conclusion disposes of all issues remaining in this case, we do not reach Appellants’ remaining arguments. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–39 is reversed. REVERSED kmm Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation