Ex Parte Jonas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

12338650 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/338,650 12/18/2008
63675 7590 07/01/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL
24 Greenway Plaza
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046-2472
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey J. Jonas
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.
S VL920070163US 1 5779
EXAMINER
MCCORMICK, GABRIELLE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY J. JONAS and PAUL D. HULSEBERG
Appeal2014-005540 1
Application 12/338,6502
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JAMES A. WORTH, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4--8, 11-15, and 18-21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Jan. 13, 2014) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Mar. 31, 2014), and the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Aug. 13, 2013) and
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 31, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal2014-005540
Application 12/338,650
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to providing a computer-implemented
method of characterizing a network of relationships between entities (Spec.
iTiT 1, 5).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method of characterizing a network
of relationships between entities, comprising:
evaluating a plurality of data records to identify groups of one
or more data records, wherein each data record identifies at least an
entity and each group of data records refers to a same entity;
evaluating the identified groups of one or more data records to
identify one or more relationships between the respective entities
represented by the respective groups of data records;
determining a first-degree distance score for each of the one or
more identified relationships, wherein each first-degree distance score
provides a measure of a direct relationship strength between two of
the entities in a given identified relationship, based on the group of
data records corresponding to the two entities;
determining a second-degree distance score for a first one of the
entities and each of one or more second entities, wherein each second-
degree distance score provides a measure of an indirect relationship
strength between the first entity and the respective second entity and
wherein the first entity and each respective second entity have an
identified relationship to a third one of the entities;
generating, by operation of one or more computer processors, a
sphere-of-influence network of the respective entities represented by
the respective groups of data records, wherein the sphere-of-influence
network characterizes the identified relationships between entities
based on the determined first-degree and second-degree distance
scores;
receiving a request for a visualization of at least a portion of the
sphere-of-influence network, wherein the request specifies the first
entity and a depth at which to display relationships between the first
entity and other entities in the sphere-of-influence network; and
2
Appeal2014-005540
Application 12/338,650
generating the visualization, wherein the visualization displays
the one or more direct and indirect relationships with the respective
first-degree and second-degree distance scores for the first entity and
other entities of the sphere-of-influence network within the depth
specified by the request and wherein the visualization represents the
direct and indirect relationships between entities by depicting
relationships between the first entity and other entities having a
greater first-degree or second-degree measure of relationship strength
more proximate to the first entity than relationships between entities
having a lower measure of relationship strength.
(Appeal Br. 16, Claims App.)
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and the Appellants appeal, the following
rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marlow (US
2009/0177744 1A .. l, pub. July 9, 2009) and Farnham (US 2005/0165715 Al,
pub. July 28, 2005).
2. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Marlow, Farnham, and Tsuboi (US 2006/0195536
Al, pub. Aug. 31, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 4-7
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the prior art relied on
by the Examiner fails to disclose "generating the visualization, wherein the
visualization displays the one or more direct and indirect relationships with
the respective first-degree and second-degree distance scores for the first
entity and other entities of the sphere-of-influence network within the depth
3
Appeal2014-005540
Application 12/338,650
specified by the request," as recited by independent claim 1 (Appeal Br. 10-
14). Appellants argue, inter alia, that Marlow fails to disclose a
visualization of a network, as recited (id. at 12-13).
With respect to the argued limitation, the Examiner determines as a
matter of claim interpretation that: "the phrase 'the one or more' is
understood as displaying at least one. It is not understood as requiring the
display of a plurality" (Ans. 2)( emphasis in original). We disagree with the
Examiner's claim construction of "one or more." The context of the claim
makes clear that multiple relationships are being analyzed. For example, the
claim recites "and" in between "direct" and "indirect" in the same limitation,
i.e., "one or more direct and indirect relationships" (emphasis added). As
such, independent claim 1 requires visualization of a plurality of
relationships. Because the Examiner's findings in rejecting claim 1 is based
on this flawed interpretation of the claim language, we conclude that a prima
facie case of obviousness has not been established in the first instance.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103(a)
of independent claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under
§ 103(a) of claims 2 and 4--7, which depend therefrom.
Independent claims 8 and 15 and dependent claims 11-14 and 18-21
Independent claims 8 and 15 contain similar language and
requirements as independent claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of independent claims 8 and 15, and claims 11-14 and 18-21,
which depend therefrom, for similar reasons as for independent claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-005540
Application 12/338,650
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--8, 11-15, and 18-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
5