Ex Parte Joslyn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

12775125 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121775, 125 05/06/2010
29171 7590 06/22/2016
BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE
ATTN: IP LEGAL SERVICES, Kl-53
P.O. BOX999
RICHLAND, WA 99352
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cliff A. Joslyn
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.
16285-E 9501
EXAMINER
HOFFLER, RAHEEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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):
ipdocket@pnl.gov
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLIFF A. JOSLYN, JOHNS. BURKE,
TERENCE J. CRITCHLOW, EMILIE HOGAN,
NICOLAS HENGARTNER, and JUDITH COHN
Appeal2013-010982
Application 12/775, 125
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2013-010982
Application 12/775, 125
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We affirm.
Appellants 'Disclosed Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is a computer-
implemented method for specifying a data view of records in a multi-
dimensional database, performing iterative operations on the data view, and
presenting the resulting data view from the operations (claim 1; Abs.; Figs. 3
and 8).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for discovering portions
of a multi-dimensional database that are significant to an
analyst, \~1herein the multi-dimensional database comprises a
plurality of records with dimensions and is stored on a memory
device, the method characterized by the steps of:
Specifying a data view comprising at least two
dimensions and all records of the database;
Performing a plurality of operation iterations on the data
view, wherein each iteration is a chain operation, a hop
operation, or an anti-hop operation;
Ceasing said operation iterations upon satisfaction of a
termination criteria; and
Presenting to the analyst the data view resulting from
said performing;
Wherein the chain operation comprises the steps of:
Calculating a chain statistical significance measure
for each value of each of the dimensions in the data view;
Selecting one or more chain values for a dimension
in the view;
2
Appeal2013-010982
Application 12/775, 125
Adding the chain values to a filter;
Removing the dimension of the chain values from
the view;
Wherein the hop operation comprises the steps of:
Calculating a hop statistical significance measure,
relative to the dimension(s) in the view and constrained
by the filter, for each of the dimensions that is neither in
the view nor in the filter;
Selecting a hop dimension from the dimensions
that are not in the view or in the filter;
Adding the hop dimension to the data view; and
Wherein the anti-hop operation comprises the steps of:
Calculating an anti-hop statistical significance
measure relative to other dimensions in the view and
constrained by the filter, for each of the dimensions in the
view;
Selecting an anti-hop dimension from the
dimensions in the view; and
Removing the anti-hop dimension from the view.
Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1; 4; and 6-16 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lesh et al. (US
2005/0262057 Al; published Nov. 24, 2005) and Fayyad et al (US
6,633,882 Bl; published Oct. 14, 2003). Final Act. 2-7; Ans. 3-8.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, and 5 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lesh, Fayyad, and
Barlaud et al. (US 2010/0254573 Al; published Oct. 7, 2010). Final Act. 7-
8; Ans. 8-9.
3
Appeal2013-010982
Application 12/775, 125
Appellants ; Contentions 1
( 1) Appellants contend (Br. 6-10) the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 4, and 6-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Lesh and Fayyad for numerous reasons including:
(a) Lesh fails to disclose "Performing a plurality of operation
iterations on the data view, wherein each iteration is a chain operation, a hop
operation, or an anti-hop operation" (Br. 9);
(b) Lesh fails to disclose "Ceasing said operation iterations upon
satisfaction of a termination criteria; and Presenting to the analyst the data
view resulting from said performing" (Br. 9);
( c) Lesh fails to disclose:
Wherein the chain operation comprises the steps of: Calculating
a chain statistical significance measure for each value of each of
the dimensions in the data view; Selecting one or more chain
values for a dimension in the view; Adding the chain values to a
filter; Removing the dimension of the chain values from the view
and that Lesh fails to teach a projection of a subset of records from a two-
dimensional view (Br. 9);
( d) Lesh fails to disclose:
Wherein the hop operation comprises the steps of: Calculating a
hop statistical significance measure, relative to the dimension( s)
1 Aside from asserting claims 2, 3, and 5 are allowable for the same reasons
argued for claim 1 (which grounds are different because different references
are applied), Appellants' Brief fails to present any arguments with regard to
the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5 under§ 103(a) over Lesh, Fayyad, and
Barlaud (see Br. 10-11). Therefore, because Appellants have not disputed
the Examiner's rejection set forth in the Answer (see Ans. 8-9), Appellants
have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, and 5. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2013-010982
Application 12/775, 125
in the view and constrained by the filter, for each of the
dimensions that is neither in the view nor in the filter; Selecting
a hop dimension from the dimensions that are not in the view or
in the filter; Adding the hop dimension to the data view
(Br. 1 O); and
( e) Lesh fails to disclose:
Wherein the anti-hop operation comprises the steps of:
Calculating an anti-hop statistical significance measure relative
to other dimensions in the view and constrained by the filter, for
each of the dimensions in the view; Selecting an anti-hop
dimension from the dimensions in the view; and Removing the
anti-hop dimension from the view.
(Br. 10).
Issues on Appeal
Appellants, in the Appeal Brief, present arguments to claims 1, 4, and
6-16 as a group, without arguing any specific claim (Br. 6-10). Claim 1 is
the only independent claim. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims consisting of claims 1, 4, and 6-16, and
we will address representative independent claim 1, in our analysis infra.
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 6-10), the
following issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 4, and 6-16 as being
obvious because, allegedly, the combination of Lesh and Fayyad
does not teach or suggest the limitations at issue in representative
claim 1 of (i) "Performing a plurality of operation iterations on the
data view, wherein each iteration is a chain operation, a hop
operation, or an anti-hop operation"; (ii) "Ceasing said operation
iterations upon satisfaction of a termination criteria; and
5
Appeal2013-010982
Application 12/775, 125
Presenting to the analyst the data view resulting from said
performing"; (iii) "Wherein the chain operation comprises the
steps of: Calculating a chain statistical significance measure for
each value of each of the dimensions in the data view; Selecting
one or more chain values for a dimension in the view; Adding the
chain values to a filter; Removing the dimension of the chain
values from the view" and a projection of a subset of records from
a two-dimensional view; (iv) "Wherein the hop operation
comprises the steps of: Calculating a hop statistical significance
measure, relative to the dimension( s) in the view and constrained
by the filter, for each of the dimensions that is neither in the view
nor in the filter; Selecting a hop dimension from the dimensions
that are not in the view or in the filter; Adding the hop dimension
to the data view"; and (v) "Wherein the anti-hop operation
comprises the steps of: Calculating an anti-hop statistical
significance measure relative to other dimensions in the view and
constrained by the filter, for each of the dimensions in the view;
Selecting an anti-hop dimension from the dimensions in the view;
and Removing the anti-hop dimension from the view?"
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner has erred. We disagree
with Appellants' contentions.
6
Appeal2013-010982
Application 12/775, 125
Claims 1, 4, and 6-16
With regard to representative claim 1, we 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. 2-8; Ans. 3-9), and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief (see Ans. 10-11 ). We concur with the conclusion of obviousness
reached by the Examiner with regard to the obviousness of claim 1 in view
of the combination of Lesh and Fayyad.
Appellants define a "chain operation" as a "chain statistical
significance measure" (Spec. i-f 7), and an example of a "chain statistical
significance measure" as including "relative entropy" measures (Id.).
Therefore, the Examiner is correct that Lesh teaches a chain operation as
defined by Appellants because Lesh teaches relative entropy measurements
(Ans. 4 and 10-11; Final Act. 3 and 8-9; see also Lesh i-fi-123 and 77).
The Examiner is also correct that Lesh teaches ceasing upon a
termination criteria (Ans. 4; Final Act. 3; see also Lesh i-fi-130, 40, and 96-
98) and presenting the data view (Ans. 4; Final Act. 3; see also Lesh i-fi-137-
39; Fig. 3).
As discussed supra, Lesh teaches a "chain operation" as claimed.
Although Appellants criticize Lesh for not teaching a projection of a subset
of records from a two-dimensional view (Br. 9), Fayyad, not Lesh, is relied
upon by the Examiner for "Specifying a data view comprising at least two
dimensions and all records of the database" as part of the combination of
references. (Final Act. 4; Br. 5). We agree with the Examiner that Fayyad
teaches "Specifying a data view comprising at least two dimensions and all
records of the database" (Ans. 5; Final Act. 4; Fayyad, col. 3, 11. 43-57, col.
7
Appeal2013-010982
Application 12/775, 125
5, 11. 25-50, col. 11, 11. 30-44, and Fig. 5). Each reference relied upon by
the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in
combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (One cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references) (citation omitted). In this light, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 9) that the combination of
Lesh and Fayyad fail to teach the limitation in representative claim 1 of
"Specifying a data view comprising at least two dimensions and all records
of the database ... Wherein the chain operation comprises the steps of: ...
Removing the dimension of the chain values from the view."
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' contention (Br. 9-10) that
the Examiner has failed to establish that the references teach "Wherein the
chain operation ... ,""Wherein the hop operation ... ,"and "Wherein the anti-
hop operation .... " Appellants argue that all three "Wherein" clauses must
be taught by Lesh, but these arguments are not commensurate with the
claimed invention's scope and accordingly are unpersuasive. See In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[The] proffered facts ...
are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore
unpersuasive."). The limitation preceding the "Wherein" clauses-
"Performing a plurality of operation iterations on the data view, wherein
each iteration is a chain operation, a hop operation, or an anti-hop
operation"-requires one of a chain operation, a hop operation, or an anti-
hop operation to be performed. It is noted that claim scope is not limited by
claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to
be performed. See MPEP § 2111.04. Here, the "Wherein" clauses drawn to
8
Appeal2013-010982
Application 12/775, 125
the optional "hop" and "anti-hop" operations are not required under the
broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, due to the alternative nature of
the claim (see claim 1, "wherein each iteration is a chain operation, a hop
operation, or an anti-hop operation" (emphasis added)). It has been shown
supra that Lesh teaches a "chain operation" and "Wherein the chain
operation ... " as claimed. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner failed to teach a required claim limitations recited in
representative claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, and 5
Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combination of Lesh and Fayyad teaches or suggests the method
recited in claims 2, 3, and 5 because Appellants do not address the merits of
the inclusion of Barlaud in the combination, or otherwise present arguments
on the merits with regard to these claims (see Br. 10). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (requiring a statement in the briefs as to each ground of
rejection presented by Appellants for review); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(stating that arguments not presented in the briefs by Appellants will be
refused consideration). As such, Appellants have not separately argued that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, and 5 or otherwise shown this
obviousness rejection to be in error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
CONCLUSIONS
( 1) The Examiner did not err in determining the combination of Lesh
and Fayyad teaches or suggests the limitations of representative claim 1, 4,
and 6-16 as being obvious, because the combination of Lesh and Fayyad
teaches or suggests the contested limitations (i) "Performing a plurality of
9
Appeal2013-010982
Application 12/775, 125
operation iterations on the data view, wherein each iteration is a chain
operation, a hop operation, or an anti-hop operation;" (ii) "Ceasing said
operation iterations upon satisfaction of a termination criteria; and
Presenting to the analyst the data view resulting from said performing;" (iii)
"Wherein the chain operation comprises the steps of: Calculating a chain
statistical significance measure for each value of each of the dimensions in
the data view; Selecting one or more chain values for a dimension in the
view; Adding the chain values to a filter; Removing the dimension of the
chain values from the view" and a projection of a subset of records from a
two-dimensional view; (iv) "Wherein the hop operation comprises the steps
of: Calculating a hop statistical significance measure, relative to the
dimension(s) in the view and constrained by the filter, for each of the
dimensions that is neither in the view nor in the filter; Selecting a hop
dimension from the dimensions that are not in the view or in the filter;
Adding the hop dimension to the data view;" and (v) "Wherein the anti-hop
operation comprises the steps of: Calculating an anti-hop statistical
significance measure relative to other dimensions in the view and
constrained by the filter, for each of the dimensions in the view; Selecting an
anti-hop dimension from the dimensions in the view; and Removing the anti-
hop dimension from the view" as recited in representative claim 1.
(2) Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
2, 3, and 5 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Lesh, Fayyad, and Barlaud.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-16.
10
Appeal2013-010982
Application 12/775, 125
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
11