Ex Parte Mehra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

12432492 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/432,492 0412912009 Pankaj Mehra
56436 7590 09/29/2016
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.
82249163 7179
EXAMINER
SHMATOV, ALEXEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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 P ANKAJ MEHRA, ROGER BROOKS, and
CHRISTOPHER THOMAS
Appeal2015-005590
Application 12/432,492
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MATHEW McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.
Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention on appeal relates to "computer-
implemented methods for automatically creating an ontology comprising a
graph representing a hierarchy of related concepts." (Spec. i-f3).
Appeal2015-005590
Application 12/432,492
Representative Claim 1
1. A computer-implemented method for creating an ontology
for a domain by reference to a knowledge corpus comprising
linked documents and a category hierarchy wherein each
document is contained in one or more categories and wherein the
one or more categories contain one or more other categories, the
method comprising:
searching the knowledge corpus to identify documents
with text that matches a seed domain description;
[L 1] identifying further documents within the corpus that
are semantically similar to the identified documents;
[L2] identifying a subgraph of the category hierarchy
that includes the categories assigned to the identified documents
and the identified further documents;
determining the identified documents and the identified
further documents that are indicative of a second domain
description, the second domain description being at least as broad
as the seed domain description; and
[L3] forming the ontology by reducing the identified
subgraph of the category hierarchy to only include the identified
documents and the identified further documents that are
determined to be indicative of the second domain description.
(Emphasis and bracketed lettering added to highlight contested limitations
LI, L2, and L3.)
Rejections
A. Claims 1-3, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combined teachings and suggestions of Ciravegna et al. (US
2010/0174704 Al; pub. July 8, 2010) and Canright et al. (US
2006/0059144Al Al; pub. Mar. 16, 2006)).
2
Appeal2015-005590
Application 12/432,492
B. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
teachings and suggestions of Ciravegna, Canright, and Wen et al. (US
2004/0158560 Al; pub. Aug. 12, 2004).
C. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
teachings and suggestions of Ciravegna, Canright, and Hogue (US
2007/0198503 Al; pub. Aug. 23, 2007).
D. Claims 7, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combined teachings and suggestions of Ciravegna, Canright, and Zhao
(US 5,920,864; iss. July 6, 1999).
E. Claims 9, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combined teachings and suggestions of Ciravegna, Canright, and Wen
and "Statistics 101" (Conditional Probability,
http://www.stat.yale.edu/C.Ourses/ 1997-98/ 101/condprob.htm, last
visited 2/19/2014) (NPL prior art date 1997-1998).
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1-3,
and 11 and 12, rejected under rejection A, on the basis of representative
independent claim 1. Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal
of claims 9, 10, 14, and 15, rejected under rejection E, on the basis of
representative dependent claim 9. We address remaining claims 4--8, and
13, rejected under rejections B, C, and D, infra. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. For the reasons discussed below, and regarding contested
limitations LI, L2, and L3 of representative claim 1, and the contested
3
Appeal2015-005590
Application 12/432,492
limitations of representative claim 9, we disagree with Appellants'
arguments. We adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants'
arguments made in the Appeal Brief. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection of Independent Claim 1under35 USC§ 103(a)
Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err in finding the
cited combination of references would have taught or suggested contested
limitations L 1, L2, and L3:
[L 1] identifj;ing further documents within the corpus that are
semantically similar to the identified documents;
[L2] identifj;ing a subgraph of the category hierarchy that
includes the categories assigned to the identified documents and
the identified fitrther documents;
[L3] forming the ontology by reducing the identified subgraph
of the category hierarchy to only include the identified
documents and the identified further documents that are
determined to be indicative of the second domain description[,]
within the meaning of claim 1? 1
1 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See e.g., (Spec. i-f 49) ("While the invention
has been disclosed with respect to a limited number of embodiments, those
skilled in the art will appreciate numerous modifications and variations
therefrom. It is intended that the appended claims cover such modifications
and variations as fall within the true spirit and scope of the invention.").
4
Appeal2015-005590
Application 12/432,492
Limitation Li of claim 1
Limitation L 1 of claim 1 recites: "identifying further documents
within the corpus that are semantically similar to the identified documents;"
(Emphasis added).
Regarding limitation L 1, Appellants focus on the identification of
documents that are semantically similar to the identified documents, and
attempt to distinguish the claim language over Ciravegna based on the
sequence of steps:
The semantic search in Ciravegna is therefore performed for the
search query and not for the results of the keyword search as
evidenced by the fact that Ciravegna discusses that the semantic
search at step 308 may be performed before the keyword search
at step 306. As a result, in Ciravegna, the results of the semantic
search on the keyword search may differ from and may not be
semantically similar to the results of the keyword search.
(App. Br. 9).
However, we find Appellants' principal contention (id.) regarding step
LI ("identifying further documents ... that are semantically similar") is
grounded on an erroneous premise, regarding a purported reverse order for
performing the keyword search (step 306) and semantic search (step 308), as
described by Ciravegna (Figure 3).
We find paragraph 56 of Ciravegna expressly describes: "Steps 306
and 308 are independent of each other and so may be performed in either
order . ... " (Emphasis added). The Examiner need only show at least one
embodiment that teaches or suggests the contested claim limitation. (See
Final Act. 6, citing paragraphs 56-58, and Figure 3 of Ciravegna). Because
Ciravegna (Figure 3, i-f 56) teaches either order of performing a keyword
search (step 306), and a semantic search (step 308), on this record, we are
5
Appeal2015-005590
Application 12/432,492
not persuaded the Examiner erred regarding contested limitation L 1 of
claim 1.
Limitation L2 of claim 1
Limitation L2 of claim 1 recites: "identifj;ing a subgraph of the
category hierarchy that includes the categories assigned to the identified
documents and the identified further documents;" (Emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Ciravegna (i-f 53) teaches or suggests limitation
L2 by "using an ontology visualizer service and graph service to display the
search results in a visual display, with the search results grouped in terms of
author (or any other criteria)." (Ans. 5). The Examiner explains (id.):
[The] Examiner has interpreted such grouping of the search
results documents for a particular author in the ontology as the
"identifying of a subgraph ... " The search results are grouped
by author. The author grouping of the ontology is a "subgraph"
that is identified. This subgraph includes the author categories
as assigned to the keyword search results and semantic search
results, i.e. "includes the categories assigned to the identified
documents and identified further documents." The term
"subgraph" per se does not carry any particular meaning.
According to the claim language, the term "subgraph" simply
includes categories.
Regarding limitation L2, Appellants merely recite the claim language
(App. Br. 9), reproduce the Examiner's findings (App. Br. 10), and assert:
at paragraph [0053], [Ciravegna] does not actually state "that the
search results for the combined keyword and semantic searches
can be displayed as an ontology in graph form" as alleged in the
Office Action. Instead, that cited paragraph discusses that the
ontology visualizer service 260 provides information for the
display of the ontology 227. Ciravegna describes the ontology
structure 227 as being predefined and accessible by extractors
222 during a pre-process stage 220 to build a triplestore data.
6
Appeal2015-005590
Application 12/432,492
Ciravegna, par. l 0049 J. As such, Ciravegna describes the
ontology 227 as being a structure that is predefined and accessed
during a pre-process stage 220.
(App. Br. 10-11).
Although the Examiner's mapping (as understood by Appellants), is
reproduced in the Appeal Brief (11, i-f 2), 2 we find Appellants do not
substantively address the Examiner's findings regarding limitation L2, by
traversing the rejection, and persuasively distinguishing each element of
limitation L2 over the corresponding specific features mapped by the
Examiner. 3 Because Appellants' arguments are not responsive to the
Examiner's specific findings, on this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred regarding contested limitation L2 of claim 1. 4
2 See (App. Br. 11, i-f 2)("The Examiner construes the 'specified criteria,'
which Ciravegna describes as being, for instance 'author,' and to which the
search results are grouped, as being equivalent to the 'categories assigned
.... ' The Examiner also constn1es the author grouping of the ontology as an
identified sub-graph, in which the author grouping 'includes the author
categories as assigned to the keyword search results and semantic search
results.' Final Office Action, page 3 .").
3 Because "applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
4 See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art."). Accord Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843,
at *4 (BP AI Aug. 10, 2009) ("Informative") ("Appellants' argument ...
repeatedly restates elements of the claim language and simply argues that the
elements are missing from the reference.")
7
Appeal2015-005590
Application 12/432,492
Limitation L3 of claim 1
Limitation L3 of claim 1 recites: ''forming the ontology by reducing
the identified subgraph of the category hierarchy to only include the
identified documents and the identified further documents that are
determined to be indicative of the second domain description;" (Emphasis
added).
The Examiner finds paragraphs 95 and 96 of Canright, when
combined with Ciravegna, teach or suggest limitation L3. (Final Act. 7).
Appellants disagree:
As noted in the cited portion above, the "subgraph" in Canright
is "composed of all these hits and the links between them." The
"subgraph" in Canright, therefore, cannot reasonably be
construed as a "subgraph of the category hierarchy that includes
the categories assigned to the identified documents and the
identified further documents." That is, because the "subgraph"
in Canright is composed of hits and links between them, the
"subgraph in Canright does not include the categories assigned
to the hits.
(App. Br. 12).
However, given that Appellants have not pointed to a definition in the
Specification for "subgraph" that further narrows a "subgraph" beyond the
broad language of limitation L2 as "includ[ing] the categories assigned to
the identified documents and the identified further documents," we find no
claim language that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading. See n.3
supra. Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
regarding contested limitation L3 of claim 1.
For these reasons, and on this record, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate
legal conclusion of obviousness regarding independent claim 1. Because
8
Appeal2015-005590
Application 12/432,492
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Section
103 rejection of representative claim 1 over the combination of Ciravegna
and Canright. Claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 fall with claim 1. See Grouping of
Claims, supra.
Dependent Claims 9, 10, 14, and 15
Regarding claims 9, 10, 14, and 15, Appellants contend:
. . . the Examiner has failed to establish that any of the cited
documents discloses "the subgraph is reduced by removing terms
with a low first conditional probability" as recited in claims 9 and
14 and "the subgraph is reduced by removing terms with a low
second conditional probability" as recited in claims 10 and 15.
Thus, even if the Examiner could somehow be construed as
having established that the proposed combination of documents
discloses the equation recited in these claims, the Examiner has
failed to establish that the proposed combination of documents
discloses the remaining features of these claims.
In addition, the Examiner has not and cannot reasonably
assert that Wen and Statistics 101 make up for the deficiencies in
the proposed combination of Ciravegna and Canright with
respect to independent claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, even
assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in
the art were somehow motivated to combine Ciravegna,
Canright, Wen, and Statistics 101, the proposed combination
would still fail to result in each and every element recited in
claims 9, 10, 14, and 15. The proposed combination therefore
fails to render these claims prima facie obvious.
(App. Br. 18).
Appellants' contention consists of mere attorney arguments and
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence and are
entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
(Fed. Cir. 1997). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)("Under each heading
identifying the ground of rejection being contested, any claim(s) argued
9
Appeal2015-005590
Application 12/432,492
separately or as a subgroup shall be argued under a separate subheading that
identifies the claim(s) by number. A statement which merely points out what
a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability
of the claim.").
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the § 103 rejection of representative dependent claim 9 over the
combination of Ciravegna, Canright, Wen, and "Statistics 101." Claims 10,
14, and 15 fall with claim 9. See Grouping of Claims, supra.
Remaining Claims 4-8 and 13, rejected under rejections B, C, and D,
Appellants advance no separate, substantive arguments for the
remaining claims 4--8 and 13 on appeal, which are rejected under rejections
B-D. (App. Br. 15-18). Arguments not made are considered waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, we sustain rejections B-D of claims
4--8 and 13.
Reply Brief
To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the Answer, we note
arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or
are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's Answer will not be
considered except for good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Conclusion
For at least the aforementioned reasons, and on this record, we find a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's underlying factual
findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding the
10
Appeal2015-005590
Application 12/432,492
contested limitations LI, L2, and L3 of representative independent claim 1,
and the contested limitations of representative dependent claim 9.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
11