Ex Parte Shah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2016

13007175 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/007, 175 01114/2011 AmipJ. Shah
56436 7590 09/20/2016
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.
82467409 6081
EXAMINER
VO,CECILEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 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 AMIP J. SHAH and MANISH MAR WAH
Appeal2015-005825
Application 13/007,175
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-20. App. Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.,
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 27, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
Appeal2015-005825
Application 13/007,175
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods of determining sub-tree
similarity for component substitution. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. The claims have not been
argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of representative Claim 1 (see App. Br. 8), which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
1. A method of determining sub-tree similarity for
component substitution, the method carried out by program
code stored on non-transient computer-readable medium and
executed by a processor, the method comprising:
assigning a similarity metric to a plurality of trees stored
in computer-readable media,
wherein similarity of individual nodes is combined
together to determine the similarity metric between all nodes of
the plurality of trees;
constructing a distance matrix in computer-readable
media, the distance being between sub-trees based on the
assigned similarity metric; and
(filed May 14, 2015, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed Mar. 16,
2015, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed June 19, 2014, "Final Act."), and the
Specification (filed Oct. 17, 2012, "Spec.") for their respective details.
2
Appeal2015-005825
Application 13/007,175
correlating sub-trees in the computer-readable media
based on the distance matrix.
References and Rejections3
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Gupta, et al., US 6,513,059 Bl Issued Jan. 28, 2003
Jing, et al., US 8,352,465 Bl Filed Sept. 3, 2010
Barkol, et al., US 2012/0106367 Al Filed Oct. 30, 2010
1. Claims 1--4, 6-13, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Barkol and Jing. Final Act. 3-8.
2. Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barkol, Jing, and Gupta. Final Act. 8-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-20 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We find Appellants'
arguments persuasive of error. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim,
as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4--7.
3 The Specification is objected to. Final Act. 3. As Appellants acknowledge
(see App. Br. 4), objections are reviewed by way of petition to the Director
of the USPTO under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.181. The Board will not hear or decide
issues pertaining to objections and formal matters inasmuch as they are not
properly before the Board. See MPEP 706.01.
3
Appeal2015-005825
Application 13/007,175
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 10, AND 18: OBVIOUSNESS OVER BARKOL AND JING
Appellants argue these claims as a group and contend they are each
patentable in view of the limitations of Claim 1. App. Br. 4.
The similarity metric between all nodes of the plurality of trees.
Representative Claim 1 (see App. Br. 4) recites, inter alia, "wherein
similarity of individual nodes is combined together to determine the
similarity metric between all nodes of the plurality of trees." Appellants
contend this recitation is not taught by Jing. Id. Appellants argue Jing
discloses "For example, for a cluster of images x, y, and z, each image is
assigned a ranking score within a set of search results as a whole (e.g., x=3,
y=7, z=54)." Id. at 4--5. (Quotation marks omitted.) According to
Appellants and contrary to the Examiner's finding, Jing does not actually
state "as similarity of individual nodes combined together," as claimed. Id.
at 5. (Quotation marks omitted.) 1A1ppellants maintain assigning each image
a ranking score does not disclose that a similarity of individual nodes is
combined together. Id.
The Examiner's Answer finds Jing teaches that a similarity matrix is a
similarity value of each image. Ans. 3. Jing teaches a hierarchical
clustering of images is generating by using the similarity matrix for the
images. Id. A canonical image, i.e., the similarity metric between all
images of hierarchical clustering, is identified based on the highest rank
within that cluster. Id. The canonical image is a "visual summary" of the
semantic content of each cluster of images. Id. (citing Jing, col. 6, 1. 17---col.
7, 1. 12). The Examiner finds, thus, Jing teaches the claimed "similarity of
4
Appeal2015-005825
Application 13/007,175
individual nodes is combined together to determine the similarity metric
between all nodes of the plurality of trees." Id. at 5.
Appellants' reply reiterates the claims "assign[] a similarity metric to
a plurality of trees," whereas, the Examiner cites Jing as teaching "a
hierarchical clustering of images is [generated] by using the similarity
matrix, the similarity matrix is a similarity value of each image." Reply Br.
1 (citing Ans. 3).
We agree with Appellants. The claims recite, inter alia, "assigning a
similarity metric to a plurality of trees." As found by the Examiner, Jing
relates to a similarity relationship among images. Ans. 3. The Examiner
does not cite Jing as providing a teaching relating to the claimed "trees." In
view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1, 10, and 18.
THE DEPEr-~DEr-~T CLAI~v1S
The Examiner does not cite Gupta in relation to the foregoing
discussion of the independent claims. See Ans. 4---6. Therefore, in view of
the foregoing discussion, we decline to sustain the rejections of the
dependent claims.
5
Appeal2015-005825
Application 13/007,175
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6