Ex Parte Henigman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2016

12402323 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/402,323 03/11/2009
27350 7590 04/18/2016
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Box SA
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Timothy J. Henigman
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.
2008P01518US01 7484
EXAMINER
GEBRESENBET, DINKU W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2016 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):
boxsa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY J. HENIGMAN
Appeal2014-004798
Application 12/402,323
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-004798
Application 12/402,323
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a method and system for providing a data
structure having a bottom-up representation of hierarchical data based on
leaf nodes of the hierarchical data. (Spec. i-f 2). Claim 1, reproduced below,
is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for deriving from
hierarchical data a data structure having hierarchies based on a
leaf node entity, the method comprising:
determining a reverse bridge table data structure for the
hierarchical data, the reverse bridge table data structure including
an association of all ancestor node entities of the hierarchical data
for each leaf node entity of the hierarchical data and a
hierarchical level for each association, the hierarchical level
being a numerical value indicating the number of levels between
a subject leaf node and an associated ancestor;
determining an ordered listing of the associations of the
ancestor node entities and each leaf node entity based on the
hierarchical level for each association; and
providing a hierarchy table data structure including an
ordered aggregation of the hierarchical levels for each of the leaf
node entities.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Puri et al. US 6,751,622 Bl
2
June 15, 2004
Appeal2014-004798
Application 12/402,323
Dodge
J andhyala et al.
US 2007/0005615 Al
US 7,499,939 B2
REJECTION 1
Jan.4,2007
Mar. 3, 2009
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jandhyala in view of Puri and further in view of Dodge.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 14, Appellant argues the
claims together. (App. Br. 5.) We select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for the group, and address Appellant's arguments
thereto.
At the outset, we note that independent claim 1 recites "A computer-
implemented method for deriving from hierarchical data a data structure
having hierarchies based on a leaf node entity," and of the body of the claim
recites two separate "determining ... " steps and provides "a hierarchy table
1 We note that the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. We leave it to the Examiner to reevaluate whether claim 8 is directed
to an abstract idea with only a tangential, if any, relationship to a specific
structure or machine. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that
fundamental concepts, by themselves, are ineligible abstract ideas under
§ 101. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014).
The Examiner may wish to review the claims for compliance under § 101 in
light of the recently issued interim examination instructions on patent
eligible subject matter. See "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility," Dec. 16, 2014.
3
Appeal2014-004798
Application 12/402,323
data structure," but the claim does not derive a data structure or specifically
form a table. 2
Appellant contends that each of the independent claims require:
determining a reverse bridge table data structure including an
association for all ancestor node entities of the hierarchical data
for each leaf node entity of the hierarchical data, and a
hierarchical level for each association, wherein the hierarchical
level is a numerical value indicating the number of levels
between a subject leaf node and an associated ancestor.
(App. Br. 6.) Appellant further contends that the claimed invention requires:
1) an association for all ancestor node entities of the hierarchical
data for each leaf node entity of the hierarchical data;
2) a hierarchical level for each association (i.e., 1 ), above); and
3) the hierarchical level being a numerical value indicating the
number of levels between a subject leaf node and an associated
ancestor.
(App. Br. 7)( emphases deleted).
We note claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking
into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2 We note the last step in the method provides a "hierarchy table data
structure" which is not the "reverse bridge table data structure" and recites
"including an ordered aggregation of the hierarchical levels for each of the
leaf node entities" which may be different than the determined "ordered
listing of the associations of the ancestor node entities." We leave it to the
Examiner to further evaluate the claim language in any further prosecution.
4
Appeal2014-004798
Application 12/402,323
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt
as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-12) and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 3---6). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of
Appellants' arguments as follows.
The Examiner provides an explanation of the teachings of the three
references applied in the obviousness rejection. (Ans. 3---6.) The Examiner
explains how each of the three references teaches a portion of the claimed
invention where the combination would have taught and fairly suggested the
invention as recited in the language of independent claim 1. We note that
Appellant individually addresses the "combination of JANDHY ALA and
PURI" (App. Br. 7) and the Dodge reference (App. Br. 8-9), and contends
that the references do not teach or suggest the totality of argued limitations.
While we agree with Appellant's separate arguments, it is the
combination of these teachings which the Examiner has relied upon in the
rejection of representative claim 1. We find Appellant's argument to be
conclusory and merely addresses disparate portions of the combination.
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference." See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The test for
obviousness "is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Id. (citations omitted);
accord KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (obviousness
analysis does not require precise teachings of the claimed subject; the
5
Appeal2014-004798
Application 12/402,323
analysis should account for the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ).
The Examiner found that the combination of the Jandhyala and Puri
references teaches and suggests providing member identifiers for each
association between each leaf node entity and all ancestor node entities
member identifiers, but the combination uses non-numeric member
identifiers to show an ordered listing of relationships between the member
and the top-level group. (Ans. 3--4.) The Examiner has relied upon the
combination of the Dodge and Puri references to teach and suggest the use
of numeric values in the database for member identifiers. (Ans. 5-6.) We
agree with the Examiner that the overall combination would have taught or
suggested the use of a numerical value indicating the number of levels
between a subject leaf node and an associated ancestor.
Here, it is undisputed that the use of numerical values for levels in a
table was known at the time of Appellant's invention and that storing the
relationships between nodes was also known at the time of the invention.
The Supreme Court has stated that the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results. KSR Int'!, 550 U.S. at 416. Appellant has not
demonstrated that the Examiner's proffered combination of references would
have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Moreover, merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient.
See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(vii) ("A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim."). Merely alleging that the individual references fail to support an
6
Appeal2014-004798
Application 12/402,323
obviousness rejection (e.g., App. Br. 5-14, Reply Br. 1-5) is insufficient to
persuade us of Examiner error. Here, we find Appellant's arguments are
conclusory in nature and fail to address the thrust of the Examiner's
combination of teachings in the obviousness rejection.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that claim 1 recites "a
hierarchical level for each association between all ancestor node entities and
each leaf node entity of the hierarchical data, wherein the hierarchical level
is a numerical value indicating the number of levels between a subject leaf
node and an associated ancestor." (Reply Br. 1-2.) Again, Appellant argues
the individual differences of each reference rather than what the combined
teachings would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the claimed invention. (Reply Br. 1-5.) Consequently, we
sustain the rejection of representative independent claim 1 and independent
claims 8 and 14 which have not been separately argued. Dependent
claims 2-7, 9- 13, and 15-19 have not been separately argued and these
claims fall with their respective independent claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-19 based upon
obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-19.
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