Ex Parte Sullivan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 24, 2002

08784224 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 24, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ANTHONY D. SULLIVAN
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, FLEMING, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-28,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to a knowledge management system and method.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
which is reproduced below.
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
2
1. A computer-based knowledge management system, comprising:
a client operable to generate a first request, the client associated
with a knowledge worker;
a server coupled to the client and operable to receive the first
request, the server comprising a knowledge matrix operable to store
status information on a plurality of knowledge items associated with the
first request, the server operable to generate a second request for the
knowledge items if the status information stored in the knowledge matrix
indicates the availability of the knowledge items; and
an information source operable, in response to the second request,
to communicate information to the server to satisfy the first request.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Graves et al. (Graves) 5,410,344 Apr. 25, 1995
Barritz 5,499,340 Mar. 12, 1996
Srinivasan 5,548,506 Aug. 20, 1996
Oku et al. (Oku) 5,675,745 Oct. 07, 1997
(Filed Feb. 08, 1996)
Claims 1-7, 11-14, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Oku. Claims 8, 18, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Oku in view of Srinivasan. Claims 9, 15, 17, 24, and 26-28
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oku in view of
Srinivasan further in view of Barritz. Claims 10, 16, and 25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oku in view of Srinivasan further in view of
Graves.
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Mar. 25, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed Feb. 16, 1999) and reply
brief (Paper No. 12, filed Jun. 3, 1999) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that appellant has indicated at page 5 of the brief that the
claims do not stand or fall together; however, we note that appellant has not addressed
each claim separately in the brief. The examiner indicated this to appellant in the
answer at page 2 and appellant traversed the examiner’s position in the reply at page 2.
Therefore, we will address the claims as they have been specifically argued in the brief.
Claims not separately argued will be grouped with their respective parent claims.
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner maintains that the client and
the server interact to perform searches on databases. The server receives a request
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
4
from the client and the server generates a second request to the information
source/database. (See answer at pages 3-4.) The examiner further maintains that it is
old and well known to use one or more indices in a database management system to
efficiently query and search databases. The examiner takes Official Notice of this
knowledge/fact. (See answer at page 4.) The examiner therefore concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
search databases using these indices or knowledge matrices in order to ascertain if the
information sought was located in the database. (See answer at page 4.)
Appellant argues that Oku does not disclose a “knowledge matrix” and that Oku
is limited to “performing pedestrian query and retrieve functions upon databases
constructed by a ‘data modeling technique.’” (See brief at page 6.) Appellant further
argues that the examiner concocts the rejection using the Official Notice and conclusion
regarding searching without any support for his conclusion. (See brief at pages 6-7.)
We disagree with appellant. We find that the examiner has provided a logical analysis
of how data may be searched in a database. First, the indices would be searched to
see if the desired data is present in the database. If present/available in the database
then the location would have to be determined. Once the location of the desired data is
determined, the data may be retrieved. In a large database system, this may involve
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
5
many drive mechanisms, tape mechanisms and tape pickers, etc. to make the data
available to be retrieved. Therefore, we find the examiner’s line of reasoning to be
sound and well supported within the context of a database retrieval system. Therefore,
we disagree with appellant’s argument. Additionally, we find no detail or definition of
what the “status” information is in the context of the express claim language.
Therefore, we agree with the examiner that availability or presence of data would have
been a type of status information. Additionally, we note that on page 3 of appellant’s
specification, appellant states that “knowledge matrix also stores status information on
the identified knowledge items to determined whether the identified knowledge items
are current, in existence, available, or otherwise in the proper form or status to satisfy
the knowledge worker’s request.” From our understanding of this range of scope of
“status information,” the examiner’s reasoning concerning availability or presence of
information is the same as one of appellant’s alternative interpretations.
According to the Second Edition of the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary
(Copyright 1994) at page 208, “index” is defined as
Generally, a listing of key words and associated data that point to
the location of more comprehensive information. A directory index lo-
cates files and records on a disk. A record index describes the location of
key fields.
In programming, a scalar value that allows direct access into a
multielement data structure such as an array. The index allows the
programmer to calculate or otherwise derive the location of the desired
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
6
element, eliminating the need for a "brute-force" sequential search
through the collection of elements. See also array, element, hashing, list.
Additionally, an “indexed search” is defined as “[a] search for data im memory or on a
storage device that uses an index (a list of data item and their locations) to decrease
the amount of time it takes to find a particular data item."
Clearly, the examiner has a reasonable basis for his position relative to the use
of indexes or indices used in databases and with searches of the databases and the
basic process to retrieve information.
The examiner has identified column 21 of Oku as a basis for his position
concerning the searching of the database which states:
FIG. 42 is a schematic functional block diagram showing the general
concept of the organization activity management system of the invention.
In FIG. 42, reference numeral 10 denotes server environment, mainly
comprising database functions such as event database (DB) 11 dealing
with events, document database (DB) 12 dealing with documents, and
process database (DB) 13 dealing with process (schedule), and existing
RDB 14. The event database 11, document database 12, and process
database 13 are composed of the OODB constructed by the data
modeling technique of the invention.
Reference numeral 20 represent client environments, which may be used
mainly when the operator searches the event database 11, document
database 12, and process database 13. For example, when the operator
wants to see the information about the personnel, by entering a word
expressing the concept of any stratum relating to the person out of the
basic concepts of person, organization, article, document, meeting and
event, and actions from the client environments 20 side, the server
environment 10 can be accessed and searched, so that a personnel
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
7
viewer (personal retrieval function) 21 functions. Similarly, by entering a
word expressing the concept of any stratum relating to documents from
the client environments 20 side, a document viewer (document retrieval
function) 22 functions, and by entering a word expressing the function of
any stratum relating to the work from the client environments 20 side, a
work viewer (work retrieval function) 23 functions, and thus various
retrieval functions are provided. That is, the client environments 20 are
composed so that the database functions may be retrieved by using the
lower concepts of the seven basic concepts of person, organization,
article, document, meeting and event, and actions as retrieval keys. ( Col.
20, line 61-col. 21, line 26)
We agree with the examiner that Oku teaches the basic interaction between a client
and server to search a database at the server.
Appellant argues that the examiner “oversimplies the inventive concepts” of
appellant’s invention. (See brief at page 7.) We disagree with appellant; rather we find
that the language of appellant’s claimed invention is quite broad. Appellant argues that
Oku fails to teach the knowledge matrix to store status information. (See brief at page
8.) The examiner maintains that the indices would show what information is available
and where it is located. We agree with the examiner.
Appellant disputes the examiner’s position with respect to indices and requests
specific references to support the examiner position. Additionally, appellant argues that
the examiner has relied upon hindsight to reconstruct appellant’s claimed invention.
(See reply brief at page 4.) While we agree with the examiner’s position, we include the
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
8
above definitions to further evidence the use of indices, and we disagree with appellant
that the examiner has relied upon improper hindsight in reconstructing the claimed
invention.
Appellant argues that the examiner fails to appreciate the difference between an
index that identifies existing information as compared with status information that
indicates the availability of knowledge items. (See reply brief at page 4.) We disagree
with appellant, whereas if an item exists, then it would be available and that status
would be conveyed. Additionally, with respect to the accessing of the information the
location information would convey a status as to availability as discussed above.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that Oku does not disclose generating a request for knowledge
items if the status information indicates availability. (See brief at page 8.) We disagree
with appellant. Oku teaches that the client requests to the server and the server
submits a request for the search.
Appellant argues that Oku teaches away from using databases in its organization
activity management other than those constructed by the data modeling technique.
(See brief at page 8.) We disagree with appellant since appellant’s argument does not
address the examiner’s arguments. " 'A reference may be said to teach away when a
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
9
person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.' In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d
1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994)." (Brackets in original.) Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int'1, 73 F.3d 1085, 1090, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996). The examiner maintains that Oku does not teach away
from using other data structures, but is merely recommending a method used to
construct one type of database used in the system. (See answer at page 11.) We
agree with the examiner. Appellant argues that modifying the data structure of Oku
would destroy the significant purpose of Oku and therefore teaches away from using
other types of data structures. (See brief at page 9.) We disagree with appellant as
discussed above. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the examiner’s reliance upon the “work progress table,”
answer at page 11, in the response to arguments is misplaced. We agree with
appellant’s argument, at page 5 of the reply brief, but this does not change our finding
concerning the use of indices and searching databases, as discussed above. Since
appellant has not adequately rebutted the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness
of the claimed invention, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
10
independent claims 11 and 19 and dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 22 which
appellant indicated as being grouped with independent claim 1. (See reply brief at
page 3.)
With respect to dependent claims 4, 13, and 20, appellant argues that the claims
require identification of a plurality of needs of the knowledge worker and that the
examiner has not identified a basis in Oku to support his rejection of the claims. (See
brief at page 10.) We agree with appellant that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case for a knowledge worker grid operable to identify a plurality of needs
associated with the knowledge worker, a process grid operable to identify a process
item associated with the selected need, and a data grid operable to identify a data item
associated with the selected need. The examiner maintains that Oku infers that the
needs, process items, data items , etc. are associated or cross-referenced with each
other and view the present state of a task as status information. (See answer at page
11.) We disagree with the examiner that the teachings of Oku teach, infer or clearly
suggest the invention as claimed with respect to the claimed grids. Therefore, we will
not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4, 13, and 20.
With respect to dependent claims 5, 14, and 21, appellant relies upon the same
argument as above. Again, we do not find that the examiner has established a prima
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
11
facie case of obviousness, and we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5,
14, and 21.
With respect to dependent claims 8, 18, and 23, the examiner relies upon the
teachings of Srinivasan with respect to the use of passwords and authorization levels.
The examiner provides a discussion of the teachings of Srinivasan at pages 6, 7, and
12 of the answer. We agree with the examiner’s position and the combination of the
references. Appellant argues that the combination of does not teach or suggest the
“personal profile . . . that specifies the knowledge worker and a selected knowledge
worker view” and “a default profile associated with a corresponding knowledge workers’
view.” (See brief at page 11.) The examiner maintains that different people using a
system would have different levels and types of access to the system and the data
processes thereon. (See answer at page 12. ) We agree with the examiner, and we
find no difference between the knowledge worker views recited in the claims and
various levels of access. Appellant’s specification discussses knowledge worker views
at pages 19 et seq., but does not specifically detail or define the term “knowledge
worker view”. Therefore, we find the examiner’s line of reasoning convincing as to
having different levels of authorization for different classes and types of employees and
the use of both personal and default profiles. Therefore, appellant’s argument
concerning “views” is not persuasive.
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
12
With respect to dependent claims 9, 15, and 24, the examiner relies upon the
teachings of Barritz to teach the use of monitoring access (See answer at pages 7, 8
and 13.) At page 13 the examiner additionally maintains that it was well-known in the
computer art to track usage statistics for the purpose of billing, resource allocation,
maintanence scheduling, etc. Additionally, the examiner notes that the search engine
for database searching would have been an executable program as is taught by Barritz.
We agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to have generated access statistics for at least
tracking and billing. Here, we find no express limitations in dependent claim 9 which
details what type of access or statistics are being maintained. Therefore, we find that
the base combination of Oku and Srinivasan would have suggested generating access
statistics in response to interaction between the client and server as detailed by the
examiner. Therefore, we find the teachings of Barritz to be cummulative of monitoring
which would take place in the base combination of Oku and Srinivasan. Appellant
argues that Barritz teaches only monitoring executable files and would be inoperable to
generate access statistics as recited in the claims. (See brief at page 12.) We
disagree with appellant. The examiner maintains that the searching of the databases
would have been an executable file to be tracked. (See answer at page 13.) We agree
with the examiner that the search engine(s) would have been executable files.
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
13
Additionally, we agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to monitor access to nonexecutable
files if this was a major activity such as in a database searching system as taught by
Oku. Therefore, appellant’s argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 9, 15, and 24.
With respect to dependent claims 17 and 26-28, appellant argues that Oku
discloses “depending matters” rather than “pending” matters. We agree with appellant
that there is an inconsistency in the teachings of Oku. Appellant argues that the
reminder function of Srinivasan fails to teach or suggest a “pending module” or a
“pending queue” as recited in appellant’s claims. (See brief at page 13.) We disagree
with appellant. We find no language in claim 17 that details the function of the pending
module or pending queue beyond identifying the unavailable knowledge item and
storing information on the unavailable knowledge item. The examiner maintains that
the remind module for pending tasks of Srinivasan in combination with the tracking
system of Barritz would have suggested to skilled artisans to monitor queries also. We
find that we need not reach the examiner’s level of detail in the rejection since the
claims do not recite what is pending. With this said we do agree with the examiner
concerning the automatic reminders for uncompleted tasks as taught by Srinivasan as
being pending matter and keeping track of them in a queue.
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
14
Appellant argues that Barritz teaches away from monitoring non-executable files.
(See brief at page 13.) We disagree with appellant as discussed above. Since
appellant has not adequately rebutted the examiner prima facie case of obviousness,
we will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 17 and 26-28 which appellant have
grouped together. (See reply brief at page 3.)
With respect to dependent claims 10, 16, and 25, appellant argues that the
examiner’s combination does not teach or suggest the use of a watch module that
modifies a personal profile in response to access statistics. (See brief at page 13.) We
agree with appellant. While the examiner adds the teachings of Graves to the
combination, we find no teaching of a module to carry out the modifying in response to
the access statistics. The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use statistics in place of
soliciting data from a user to modify a preference profile. While we do not disagree with
the examiner, the examiner has not provided a teaching or suggestion for having a
module or step to carry out the modifying in response to the access statistics. The
language of claim 10 requires more that just modifying a profile and using statistics, the
modification must be in response to the statistics. The examiner has not addressed the
“in response to” portion of the claim limitation. Therefore, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 16, and 25.
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
15
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-3, 6-9, 11, 12, 15,
17-19, 22-24 and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed and the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jld/vsh
Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
16
L. JOY GRIEBENOW
ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION
5400 LEGACY DRIVE
H3-3A-05
PLANO, TX 75024