Ex Parte Vasudevan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2015

13016433 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/016,433 01/28/2011 Vineetha Vasudevan
56436 7590 12/10/2015
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.
82264370 4558
EXAMINER
LEROUX, ETIENNE PIERRE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2015 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 VINEETHA VASUDEVAN, JEAN-MICHEL COLLOMB and
ARPIT AGRA WAL
Appeal2014-000584
Application 13/016,433
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, HUNG H. BUI and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-000584
Application 13/016,433
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 under appeal read as follows
(emphasis added):
1. A non-transitory processor-readable medium storing code
representing instructions to cause a processor to perform a process,
the process comprising:
accessing a metadata specification including metadata
associated with generation of a data warehouse, the metadata
specification having input content in a metadata specification format
defining metadata for defining content and structure for a data mart,
and specifying aggregation rules that involve measures to be
aggregated, aggregation functions to be applied, and dimensional
attributes relative to which aggregation is performed; and
generating the data warehouse based on the metadata
specification.
7. The processor-readable medium according to claim 1,
wherein:
the data warehouse is generated at a data warehouse content
development module based on the metadata specification; and
the data warehouse content development module generates
related artifacts of the data warehouse.
8. The processor-readable medium according to claim 1,
wherein:
the data warehouse is generated at a data warehouse content
development module based on the metadata specification;
2
Appeal2014-000584
Application 13/016,433
the data warehouse content development module generates
related artifacts for the data warehouse; and
the related artifacts includes at least one of the following: a
staging area definition, data load rules, a relational schema,
aggregation rules, a objects representation, and metadata repository
entries.
10. The method 1 according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining an aggregation function, a data source, and a
plurality of dimensions for aggregate data based on the metadata
specification, the data source and the plurality of dimensions specified
within the metadata specification; and
defining the aggregate data relative to the plurality of
dimensions based on the aggregation function and the data source, the
data warehouse including the aggregate data.
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chowdhary (US
2006/0112109 Al; May 25, 2006) and Zhuge (US 2009/0265375 Al; Oct.
22, 2009). 2
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chowdhary, Zhuge, Zamanian et al
1 For claim 10, in this decision we read "method" as "processor-readable
medium." Otherwise, claim 10 would be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2---6, 11-14, and 16-20.
Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further
herein.
3
Appeal2014-000584
Application 13/016,433
(US 6,339,775 Bl; Jan. 15, 2002), and Gary Jr. et al (US 6,604,115 Bl Aug.
5, 2003). 3
Appellants ' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[In Zhuge] the mention of "aggregation operations" alone is
insufficient to teach the specific claim recitations of aggregation
rules that involve measures to be aggregated, aggregation
functions to be applied, and dimensional attributes relative to
which aggregation is performed.
App. Br. 6, emphasis omitted. Further:
Zhuge only discloses "data aggregation operations" and
"second-tier operations," There is no disclosure of a metadata
specification . . . specifying aggregation rules that involve
measures to be aggregated, aggregation functions to be applied,
and dimensional attributes relative to which aggregation is
performed. The rejection is ignoring explicit recitations in the
claim.
App. Br. 7, emphasis omitted.
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he rejection does not state specifically what is being relied
on in this paragraph as disclosing each of the very specific
claim recitations shown in [claim 7].
App. Br. 8.
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claim 9. Thus, the rejection of this
claim turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision,
this claim is not discussed further herein.
4
Appeal2014-000584
Application 13/016,433
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[Appellants] respectfully submits that Chowdhary is silent
regarding the explicit claim recitations of a data warehouse
content development module generates related artifacts of the
data warehouse. Chowdhary is also silent regarding the explicit
claim recitations of generating related artifacts for the data
warehouse; and the related artifacts includes at least one of the
following: a staging area definition, data load rules, a relational
schema, aggregation rules, a objects representation, and
metadata repository entries. Therefore, the rejection is deficient
and in error.
App. Br. 8, Appellants' emphases omitted, panel emphases added. Further:
The Examiner's Answer alleges that Chowdhary "specifically
recites 'artifacts' such as OLAP (Online Analytical Processing)
cube definitions." However, this rejection is overly narrow,
ignoring the claim recitations of "the data warehouse content
development module generates related artifacts for the data
warehouse."
Reply Br. 5, emphasis omitted.
4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because in Wildman:
Zhuge discloses that metadata is used as an interface between
the components of the architecture, and is used to specify
information concerning dimensions and hierarchies, for
example. But this is insufficient to teach each of the claim
recitations of determining an aggregation function, a data
source, and a plurality of dimensions for aggregate data based
on the metadata specification, the data source and the plurality
of dimensions specified within the metadata specification.
App. Br. 9, emphasis omitted.
5
Appeal2014-000584
Application 13/016,433
5. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The rejection alleges that the logical section recited in claim 15
is taught by Zhuge para. [0008] ("a logical model architecture,
which can be used to build a structure tor a data repository and
populate the data repository" and para. [O 121] ("utilizing the
logical model in relation to constructing the datamart
contents"). However, this misinterprets the claim recitation
requiring that the metadata specification format includes a
logical section. Implementing a logical model architecture does
not disclose a metadata specification format includes a logical
section.
The rejection also alleges that the aggregate metadata recited in
claim 15 is taught by Zhuge para. [0126] ("aggregation
functions defined from the metadata"). Again, this misinterprets
the claim recitation requiring that the metadata specification
format includes aggregate metadata. Aggregation functions
defined from the metadata does not meet the actual claim
recitation that a metadata specification format includes
aggregate metadata.
The rejection also alleges that the data load section recited in
claim 15 is taught by Zhuge para. [0125] ("the metadata is used
to manage inputs and outputs to and from different
components"). Again, this misinterprets the claim recitation
requiring that the metadata specification format includes a data
load section. Managing inputs and outputs does not meet the
actual claim recitation that a metadata specification format
includes a data load section.
App. Br. 10, emphasis omitted.
6
Appeal2014-000584
Application 13/016,433
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 15 as being
obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' conclusions. 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
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
points.
As to Appellants' above contentions 1-5, Appellants argue the
Examiner erred because the citations by Examiner are "insufficient to teach
the specific claim recitations" (App. Br. 6, emphasis added), "does not state
specifically what is being relied on in this paragraph as disclosing each of
the very specific claim recitations" (App. Br. 8, emphasis added), "silent
regarding the explicit claim recitations" (App. Br. 8, emphasis added),
"insufficient to teach each of the claim recitations" (App. Br. 9), and "does
not meet the actual claim recitation" (App. Br. 10, emphasis added). The
essence of these Appellants' arguments is that that the Examiner is required
to provide precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim. We disagree.
Appellants overlook that in the Court's KSR decision (KSR Intern. Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)), the Court repudiated any requirement
7
Appeal2014-000584
Application 13/016,433
for such a "precise teaching" to show obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415
("We begin by rejecting the rigid approach of the Court of Appeals.").
Rather, the requirement is only that the Examiner show "the subject matter
as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
KSR, 550 U.S. at 406 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103)(emphasis added); id. at 418
("[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ."). We conclude that the Examiner provides just such showings in
the rejections from which this appeal is taken. Final Act. 3-16.
Additionally, Appellants have not presented evidence sufficient to
show that combining the prior art was "uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the
prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Nor have Appellants
presented evidence that any of their incorporations of known limitations
yielded more than expected results.
Additionally as to Appellants' above contentions 1 and 4, we agree
with the Examiner's analysis citing to Zhuge i-f 153. We also note that the
last three sentences of Zhuge i-f 13 are particularly relevant.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-20 are not patentable.
8
Appeal2014-000584
Application 13/016,433
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
ELD
9