Ex Parte Lakshminarayan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201612695963 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/695,963 01/28/2010 Choudur LAKSHMINARA YAN 56436 7590 09/30/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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. 82260746 8932 EXAMINER SHANMUGASUNDARAM, KANNAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHOUDUR LAKSHMINARA YAN, JOE HILL and RAM SWAMINATHAN ___ _ Appeal2015-002912 Application 12/695,963 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN and JASON MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13- 17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). 1 Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to a method for compressing an initial dataset on a data processing system employing a group of bootstrap samples of wavelet coefficients from an initial dataset using a wavelet basis function. Abstract. 1 Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are objected. Final Rejection 2. Appeal2015-002912 Application 12/695,963 Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method for compressing an initial dataset, implemented on a data processing system, comprising the steps of: transforming the initial dataset into a group of initial wavelet coefficients using a wavelet basis function; generating a group of bootstrap samples of wavelet coefficients from the group of initial wavelet coefficients; determining an average quantile of the group of bootstrap samples of wavelet coefficients; identifying a compressed group of wavelet coefficients by deleting, from the group of initial wavelet coefficients, one or more initial wavelet coefficients having magnitudes less than a coefficient cutoff value equal to the average quantile; and using the compressed group of wavelet coefficients and the wavelet basis function to approximate the initial dataset. Rejection on Appeal Claim 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti (United States Patent Number 6, 7 60, 724 B 1; issued July 6, 2004 ), Summers (United States Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0194946 Al; published August 14, 2008) and Rhodes (United States Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0223089 Al; published October 6, 2005). Final Rejection 2-12. ANALYSIS 2 Appeal2015-002912 Application 12/695,963 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 20, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed January 12, 2015), the Answer (mailed November 12, 2014) and the Final Rejection (mailed April 21, 2014) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Appellants contend the combination of Chakrabarti, Summers, and Rhodes fails to disclose the claimed invention as recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Appeal Brief 6-9. Appellants contend: • Chakrabarti may disclose wavelet coefficients, Chakrabarti nevertheless fails to disclose determining an average quantile of a group of bootstrap samples of a wavelet coefficient, as generally recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. • Summers may disclose bootstrapping, Summers nevertheless fails to disclose determining an average quantile of a group of bootstrap samples of a wavelet coefficient, as generally recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. • Rhodes describes techniques for detecting congested locations within a network. See Rhodes, paragraph [0006]. However, Rhodes does not disclose determining an average quantile of a group of bootstrap samples of wavelet coefficients, as recited by the independent claims. Appeal Brief 7-8. The Examiner finds Rhodes addresses the deficiency of the Chakrabarti/Summers combination because "Rhodes teaches determining an average quantile of the group ([0074] wherein the mean/average quantile 3 Appeal2015-002912 Application 12/695,963 is determined); and where the cutoff value is equal to the average quantile ([0074] wherein a threshold is a cutoff). Final Rejection 3. Rhodes discloses: As shown in FIGS. 8-11, a median value of the PDF and CDP distributions occurs at an X-axis value (i.e., a normalized bandwidth value) when the dashed line crosses the Y-axis value of 0.5 (i.e., a 50% probability). Other probability threshold points could also be chosen (e.g., 0.95 or a 95% probability) to represent a modal value of the PDF and CDP distributions. The choice of threshold values for statistics like the mode, median, mean, quantile, or percentile be selected "automatically" by additional computer program instructions, or "manually" by a user of the network usage analysis system, and may be subsequently changed or updated, as desired. Rhodes, paragraph 74. Appellants argue Rhodes merely mentions that "statistics like the mode, median, mean, quantile, or percentile" for the probability density functions (PDF) and cumulative density functions (CDP) for bandwidth illustrated in Figs. 8-11 can be selected as threshold values. See Rhodes, para. [0074]. Rhodes makes no mention of wavelet coefficients, or bootstrap samples of wavelet coefficients. Appeal Brief 8. Appellants contend, "[M]erely showing that the concept of the quantile existed, or even that is could be used as a threshold value, is not sufficient to show that the present claims are obvious. Appeal Brief 9. Appellants further contend that, "[i]n rejecting the present claims, the Examiner appears to have merely assembled a disparate group of references that individually describe specific types of general mathematical operations." Appeal Brief. at 8. 4 Appeal2015-002912 Application 12/695,963 We find Appellants' argument persuasive. We do not find a correlation between the list of statistical tools disclosed in Rhodes and wavelet coefficients and bootstrapping disclosed in Chakrabarti and Summers, respectively; nor do we find the Examiner has articulated sufficient reasoning to show an artisan of ordinary skill would have combined the various references in the manner recited by the claims. 2 Consequently, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 8and15, as well as, dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 17. DECISION The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 is reversed. REVERSED 2 "It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or 'template' to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious .. .. "In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation