Ex Parte Kohlhammer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 18, 2012

10544955 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOERN KOHLHAMMER and DAVID LOUIS ZELTZER
____________

Appeal 2010-001559
Application 10/544,955
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention filters information in time-critical contexts
using domain ontologies. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative with
key disputed limitations emphasized:
Appeal 2010-001559
Application 10/544,955

2
1. An ontology contained in a storage device which is accessible to a
data processing system, the data processing system using the ontology to
determine relationships between instances of objects having types and the
ontology comprising:

a set of ontology objects, the set of ontology objects describing the
types and relationships therebetween; and

an accelerator that accelerates a determination by the data
processing system of a set of types that are relevant to a particular type.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Wilbanks US 2002/0194201 A1 Dec. 19, 2002

THE REJECTION1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)2 as
anticipated by Wilbanks. Ans. 5-13.3

1 Although the Examiner’s Answer reproduces rejections of (1) claims 1 and
15 under § 112, and (2) claims 1-15 under § 101 (Ans. 3-5), we nonetheless
presume that the Examiner withdrew these rejections and are therefore not
before us. See Ans. 13 (expressly withdrawing the § 101 rejection); see also
Advisory Action mailed June 4, 2008, at 2 (noting that Appellants’ reply
overcame the § 112 rejections and the § 101 rejection of claim 15). Accord
Reply Br. 2.
2 Although Wilbanks also qualifies as prior art under § 102(a) since it
published before Appellants’ earliest effective filing date, we nonetheless
deem this error harmless as it does not affect our assessment of the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection.
Appeal 2010-001559
Application 10/544,955

3
CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Wilbanks
discloses an ontology including an “accelerator” (i.e., a discovery layer) that
accelerates a data processing system’s determining a set of relevant object
instance types as claimed. Ans. 5-6, 14.
Appellants argue that Wilbanks does not disclose a distinct accelerator
as claimed, but merely accelerates organizing knowledge by increasing the
number of links between ontologies. App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 2-5.
Appellants add that Wilbanks’ tool 212 does not accelerate the data
processing system’s determination as claimed since humans use the tool to
discover, predict, and simulate in connection with associated ontological
networks. Id. Appellants also argue various limitations of other claims
noted in the issue statement below. App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 5-9. The
issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Wilbanks
discloses:
(1) an accelerator that accelerates a data processing system’s
determining a set of relevant object instance types as recited in claim 1?

3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed December
9, 2008 (supplemented March 3, 2009); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed
August 14, 2009; and (3) the Reply Brief filed September 28, 2009.
Appeal 2010-001559
Application 10/544,955

4
(2) an ontology file from which a set of ontology objects are generated
as recited in claim 4?
(3) a data filter with the ontology of claim 1 that filters information
belonging to an instance of an information item belonging to an information
item type of plural types as required for plural context instances, the
instances belonging to context types of the plural types as recited in claim
10?
(4) a visualization system for producing a visualization responsive to
an event, where the displayed information has as its source a data item
instance in an event instance representing the event, the visualization system
(1) selects the displayed information from the data item instance as
determined by a task instance representing a task, and (2) applies the type of
task and data item instances to the ontology as recited in claim 11?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Appellants’ domain knowledge base 115 has two major
components: (1) ontologies 117 that define how the data types, event types,
and task types relate to each other, and (2) accelerators 116 that speed up
relationship determinations. In a preferred embodiment, accelerators 116 are
tables and indexes in a relational database system. Spec. 7:1-5; Fig. 1.
2. Appellants note that an advantage of using tables and indexes in a
DBMS as an accelerator 116 is that database management systems provide
rapid and scalable access where the amount of accessed data is too great to
Appeal 2010-001559
Application 10/544,955

5
permit storing the data in main memory. Spec. 13:20-23; 15:1–16:15; Figs.
9-10.
3. According to Appellants, indexes provide more acceleration by
relating a value for a field in a table row to the row’s number, thus enabling
finding the row without searching all the rows for matching field values.
Spec. 14:30-34; 16:17-20; Figs. 9-10.
4. Wilbanks integrates biological/chemical databases 202a-n by (1)
obtaining an entity-relationship data structure or model (i.e., ontology) for
each database, and (2) identifying and linking related database entities (i.e.,
biological/chemical objects). An ontology network 210 is then obtained
integrating diverse ontologies represented by the databases. Wilbanks,
Abstract; ¶¶ 0054-55; 0061-66; Fig. 2.
5. Ontology networks 210 may be linked to an application tool or
layer (e.g., discovery/prediction and simulation tool 212) to allow more
accurate discovery, prediction, and/or simulation. Wilbanks, ¶ 0067; Fig. 2.
6. Wilbanks’ Figures 12-18 exemplify linking ontologies to provide
an ontology network, and Figure 20 shows an exemplary resulting complex
linkage network. Increasing density of relationships between entities, data
structures, and ontologies may accelerate knowledge organization and
discovery. Wilbanks, ¶ 0142; Figs. 12-18, 20.
7. Wilbanks’ operations for integrating biological/chemical databases
in Figure 5 can be embodied in an ontology network 210 of Figure 2. After
receiving a query specifying a path through an entity-relationship model,
Appeal 2010-001559
Application 10/544,955

6
entities are traversed to obtain query results based on records in plural
biological/chemical databases. Wilbanks, ¶¶ 0072-78; Fig. 5.
8. Wilbanks’ Figure 36 is an exemplary user display screen that can
be used to initiate a query using the path rule specified in Figures 28-35.
Figure 37 shows a user display screen of obtained results. Wilbanks, ¶
0172; Figs. 36-37B.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3 and 7-9
We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of representative
claim 1 which recites, in pertinent part, an accelerator that accelerates a data
processing system’s determining a set of relevant object instance types.
Appellants’ Specification does not define the term “accelerator,” but
nonetheless indicates that accelerators are components of a domain
knowledge base that hasten object-type relationship determinations. FF 1.
In a preferred embodiment, accelerators are tables and indexes in a relational
database system. FF 1-3.
Based on this discussion, we therefore construe the term “accelerator”
as a component of a data processing system that enables the system to
accelerate determining relationships between data, namely types of objects.
We emphasize that this construction is not limited to tables and indexes, for
these implementations are merely preferred embodiments of the
accelerator—a fact evidenced by claim differentiation principles. See, e.g.,
Appeal 2010-001559
Application 10/544,955

7
dependent claims 7 and 9 (limiting the recited accelerator to tables and
indexes).
With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s mapping the
recited accelerator to Wilbanks’ “discovery layer” (Ans. 14) which
corresponds to discovery/prediction and simulation layer 212 that allows
more accurate discovery, prediction, and/or simulation. FF 5. Not only is
this layer a component of Wilbanks’ data processing system, we also see no
reason why it would not also enable the system to accelerate determining
relationships between data, given the layer’s accuracy-enhancing functions
that are based, at least in part, on object types and relationships associated
with the respective ontological networks. See FF 4-6. Even assuming,
without deciding, that humans use this layer to perform at least some
discovery, predictive, and simulation functions as Appellants assert (Reply
Br. 4-5), the data processing system would still determine relevant object
types to achieve this end, and do so in an accelerated fashion due, at least in
part, to the discovery/prediction and simulation layer 212 (“discovery
layer”). See FF 4-6. That this determination is based on ontology networks
with sets of particular types of objects only bolsters our conclusion that the
system’s determining these sets would be accelerated at least with respect to
the discovery process via the discovery layer as the Examiner indicates.
Ans. 14; FF 6.
Appeal 2010-001559
Application 10/544,955

8
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2, 3, and 7-9 not separately argued with
particularity.

Claims 4-6
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 4
reciting an ontology file from which a set of ontology objects are generated.
We see no error in the Examiner’s position (Ans. 15) that since the database
that represents Wilbanks’ ontology network is associated with files, the
corresponding ontology objects would be generated, at least in part, from
these “ontology files.” See FF 4. Appellants’ argument that Wilbanks
discloses database systems, not an ontology file (App. Br. 12), is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim and, in any event, does not
persuasively show error in the Examiner’s interpretation.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 4, and claims 5 and 6 not separately argued with
particularity.

Claim 10
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 reciting, in
pertinent part, a data filter that filters information belonging to an instance of
an information item belonging to an information item type of plural types as
required for plural context instances, the instances belonging to context
Appeal 2010-001559
Application 10/544,955

9
types of the plural types, where the data filter comprises the ontology of
claim 1.
We see no error in the Examiner’s position (Ans. 16) relying on
Wilbanks’ generating query results based on records in plural
biological/chemical databases—an operation that can be embodied in the
ontology network 210 of Figure 2. FF 7. Appellants’ argument regarding
Wilbanks’ standard filtering techniques in database systems not disclosing
the kind of filtering in Appellants’ Figure 4, namely filtering an input
information item for various contexts (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 5-6) is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. Nor do Appellants persuasively
show or explain why Wilbanks’ data filter associated with generating
database query results in connection with the ontology network of Figure 2
(FF 7) would not filter information belonging to information item instances
of particular types for a context as claimed.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 10.

Claims 11-15
We will not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 11 which recites, in pertinent part, a visualization system for
producing a visualization responsive to an event, where the displayed
information has as its source a data item instance in an event instance
representing the event, the visualization system (1) selects the displayed
Appeal 2010-001559
Application 10/544,955

10
information from the data item instance as determined by a task instance
representing a task, and (2) applies the type of task and data item instances
to the ontology.
In the Answer, the Examiner cites Wilbanks’ Figures 36 and 37 for
disclosing a visualization system in connection with claim 11 (Ans. 16), and
indicates that the recited data item, event, and task instances are explained in
the Advisory Action mailed June 4, 2009 in connection with claim 15 (Ans.
18). Leaving aside the fact that this reference to the Advisory Action
improperly incorporates material by reference in the Answer,4 the Examiner
apparently takes the position that the tables in Figures 37A and B constitute
the recited “event instance,” where each column of these tables is a “data
item instance.”
Even assuming, without deciding, that the tables of Figures 37A and
B can somehow be construed as a “visualization system” (a finding that has
not been made on this record in any event), these tables displaying results
are nonetheless distinct from the query screen of Figure 36. See FF 8. And
even assuming, without deciding, that these tables can somehow be
construed as “event instances” and their columns are “data item instances”
as the Examiner asserts in the Advisory Action (see Advisory Action mailed
June 4, 2008, at 2), the Examiner fails to show how these “instances” meet

4 See MPEP § 1207.02 (“An examiner's answer should not refer, either
directly or indirectly, to any prior Office action without fully restating the
point relied on in the answer.”).
Appeal 2010-001559
Application 10/544,955

11
the particular relationships claimed, let alone identify the task and associated
task instance and its relationship to the other recited visualization system
instances. Appellants’ point in this regard (App. Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 6-9) is
well taken. Nor will we speculate in this regard here in the first instance on
appeal.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 11; (2) independent claim 15 which recites commensurate
limitations; and (3) dependent claims 12-14 for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
Under § 102, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-10, but
erred in rejecting claims 11-15.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

rwk