Ex Parte Ure

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2011

11145713 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/145,713 06/06/2005 Michael J. Ure 050606.EAS.US 3773
7590 04/28/2011
Michael J. Ure
10518 Phil Place
Cupertino, CA 95014
EXAMINER
CHBOUKI, TAREK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. URE
____________

Appeal 2009-012537
Application 11/145,713
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before RICHARD TORCZON, KARL D. EASTHOM, and STEPHEN C.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012537
Application 11/145,713

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-4. (App. Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The Disclosed Invention
The disclosed invention “provides a visual email analytics tool in
which a network graph is created without the need to identify any particular
node of the network graph.” (Spec. ¶ [0005].) The disclosed invention
includes “a search module 131 and a visualization module 133.” (Spec.
¶ [0012]; Fig. 1.) “The search module 131 maintains a search index of
emails accessible through the email server and allows emails to be
searched.” (Spec. ¶ [0012].) “The visualization module creates a
representation of the search results in the form of a network graph.” (Id.)
Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. A method of information retrieval and display comprising:
searching a message database using search criteria based on message
content;
displaying a network graph representing messages satisfying the
search criteria; and
interactively pruning or growing the network graph;
wherein a user is not required to identify any specific node of the
network graph prior to displaying the network graph.

The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3 as anticipated by Smith,
US 6,594,673 (Jul. 15, 2003) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appeal 2009-012537
Application 11/145,713

3
The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 4 as obvious based on Smith and
Blitzer, US 7,031,970 (Apr. 18, 2006) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

ISSUE
Appellant‟s responses to the Examiner‟s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner establish that Smith discloses that “a user is not
required to identify any specific node of the network graph prior to
displaying the network graph,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Smith
1. Smith discloses “systems and methods for visualizing relationships
in information relating to computer network interaction media.” (Col. 1,
ll. 11-13.) One implementation represents information relating to
newsgroups with network graphs in various display or visualization formats:
Network graphs present information as nodes that are connected
together by links. These visualization formats are rendered on a
display screen to provide a user with general information about
the structure of a newsgroup by graphing relationships between
newsgroups, between threads within a newsgroup, between
people who post to newsgroups (i.e., posters), etc.

(Col. 2, ll. 18-26.)
2. Smith also discloses a network graph (see Figure 2) for
representing collaborative information relating to books and the people who
purchased them:
Object-to-object visualization format 50 includes object nodes
52 representing the books listed in Table 1 and links 54 that
Appeal 2009-012537
Application 11/145,713

4
represent the frequency with which a single person purchases
the linked books. The lengths of the lines representing links 54
correspond to the frequency, with shorter lines corresponding to
stronger links and hence higher frequencies.

(Col. 4, l. 65- col. 5, l. 4) Smith discloses a second network graph
representing collaborative information for the same group of books and
people:
FIG. 3 illustrates a network graph in a people-to-people
visualization format 60 for representing the collaborative
information of Table 1. People-to-people visualization format
60 includes people nodes 62 representing the people listed in
Table 1 and links 64 that represent the frequency with which
the same book is purchased by the linked people. The lengths
of the lines representing links 64 correspond to the frequency,
with shorter lines corresponding to stronger links and hence
higher frequencies.

(Col. 5, ll. 13-22.)
3. Smith discloses a process for visualizing collaborative information,
such as “information relating to Usenet newsgroups.” (Col. 7, ll. 47-51;
FIG. 8.) Information may be obtained from “a selected set of newsgroups.”
(Col. 7, ll. 59-62.) “The selected set of newsgroups could include all
newsgroups or any sub-set of newsgroups, such as all the newsgroups within
a top Usenet level, such as comp, sci, or rec, or at any other level.” (Col. 7,
ll. 62-65.)
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears an initial burden of factually supporting an
articulated rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “It is
axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found if the prior
Appeal 2009-012537
Application 11/145,713

5
art reference discloses every element of the claim.” In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts that Smith does not anticipate claims 1 and 3
because Smith “does not teach that „a user is not required to identify an [sic]
specific node of the network graph prior to displaying the network graph.‟”
(App. Br. 10.) Appellant argues that certain embodiments of Smith display
network graphs “through user selection of a particular node.” (App. Br. 9
and 10 (emphasis omitted).)
The Examiner finds that in Smith, “a general structure of gathered
information about relationships between newsgroups (nodes) is displayed
wherein no user input is required.” (Ans. 9.) This particular newsgroup
embodiment of Smith displays a network graph with different types of
information as nodes. Smith implies that different nodes can be represented
by different information in different views. (See FF 1.)
1

1
Appellant relies on paragraph 0012 of the Specification as support for the
disputed (negative) claim limitation. (Br. 7.) Paragraphs 0011-0013
indicate that the invention employs commercially available software to
display email information. Paragraph 0004 describes Smith and refers to
what appears to be similar commercially available software to display e-mail
information. In terms of the negative limitation (i.e., user not required to
identify a node) argued, a comparison of the inventor‟s description of Smith
and that of the disclosed invention (as relied upon by Appellant in the Brief)
relative to this software reveals no discernable patentable distinction.
Notwithstanding a brief introductory reference to a similar negative
limitation (see Spec. par. 0005), both software descriptions involve email
senders and receivers as nodes without any specific mention of non-selection
of nodes. (Compare Spec. par. 0012 with Spec. par. 0004.)
Appeal 2009-012537
Application 11/145,713

6
In a similar example, Smith describes two network graphs (see Figs. 2
and 3) for representing collaborative information relating to books and the
people who purchased them. Smith uses the same table information to
create the two graphs. The two different graphs and use of the same table of
information to create them implies that even if a user must first identify a
book which becomes a depicted node such as is depicted in Figure 2, the
system can thereafter also display people as nodes as in Figure 3 without
requiring a user to first identify the people as nodes (i.e., the people are
connected by the books purchased in common by different people). (See
FF 2.)
In another example, similar to the newsgroup example cited by the
Examiner, Smith discloses a process for visualizing collaborative
information relating to newsgroups. (FF 3.) In this process, a user does not
identify a particular node of the graph. (Id.) Rather, levels representing top
newsgroups, such as comp, sci, or rec are selected. The system then links
the newsgroups within those groups or other groups using various
relationships between them. (Id.)
Accordingly, Appellant‟s arguments are not persuasive. Appellant
has not demonstrated that Smith fails to disclose a method for displaying a
network graph of messages “wherein a user is not required to identify any
specific node of the network graph prior to displaying the network graph.”
Therefore, we will sustain Examiner‟s rejection of independent claims
1 and 3, and claims 2 and 4 dependent therefrom, because Appellant does
not present separate arguments therefor.

Appeal 2009-012537
Application 11/145,713

7
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner‟s decision rejecting claims 1-4.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ak