HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2020

14231472 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2020)

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.
14/231,472 03/31/2014 Jeff vanderZweep H0041489 (002.1437) 2793
89955 7590 03/16/2020
HONEYWELL/LKGLOBAL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
ONAT, ALP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2020 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):
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
honeywell@lkglobal.com
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFF VANDERZWEEP, MARTIN HLUCKA,
DAVID MIKULKA, ZDENEK DVORAK, TIM FELKE, and
NAGABHUSHANA RAO BEGUR
Appeal 2019-001265
Application 14/231,472
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4, 5, and 9, all the pending claims in
this appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Honeywell International, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001265
Application 14/231,472

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to using a path specification to limit requested entity
data by designating a single explicit multiple step path between any two
pairs of entity types. See Spec., Abstr. Claim 4, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
4. A method for using a path specification to request entity
data to designate a single multiple step path between two pairs of
entities, the method comprising:
maintaining in a database a plurality of path specification
elements, each of the plurality of path specification elements
includes a relationship specification, the relationship
specification includes relationships between at least two
entities, an order of the relationships, and a forward or reverse
context of following the relationships;
determining a requested relationship specification from
user input, the requested relationship specification comprises a
source entity and a destination entity;
returning a list of data items identified from the database
based on a relationship specification identified as being
associated with a path specification element of the plurality of
path specification elements wherein the returning list of data
items are from a destination table associated with the
destination entity and are identified based on a search criteria
from the user input, on the data items which are determined to
be accessible and data items chosen on a defined path of path
specification elements, and when only one matching path
specification element exists, returning a list of data items based
exclusively on the matching path specification element;
wherein the determining step further comprising:
determining by a parent filter whether a path
specification exists on both the source entity and the
destination entity wherein the path specification is a
common destination entity specification; and
selecting, by user input enabled by the parent filter,
an entity of the common destination entity specification
wherein a list of destination entities is reduced to only a
Appeal 2019-001265
Application 14/231,472

3
set of destinations entities linked by a determined path
specification.
REJECTION
Claims 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Siddavanahalli (US 8,913,797 B1, Dec. 16, 2014),
Geisberger (US 8,824,337 B1, Sept. 2, 2014), and Cheng (US 2013/0254213
A1, Sept. 26, 2013). Final Act. 2, 24.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See id.; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Siddavanahalli, Geisberger, and Cheng teaches or suggests “maintaining in a
database a plurality of path specification elements, each of the plurality of
path specification elements includes a relationship specification,” as recited
in claim 4? Appeal Br. 18–20.
Appellant contends that Siddavanahalli does not teach or suggest “a
relationship based model to determine a context path between entities.” Id.
at 19. Rather, Appellant contends, Siddavanahalli’s linking of persons that
have been tagged in photographs “has no context relationship but is based on
the two persons[’] tagged photographs and not on a contextual relationship.”
Id.
The Examiner finds the express language of claim 4 contains “no such
term such as ‘contextual relationship.’” Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds
that, although claim 4 recites a “forward or reverse context of following the
Appeal 2019-001265
Application 14/231,472

4
relationship,” that limitation is “addressed with the Geisberger reference.”
Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Not only is Appellant’s argument not
commensurate with the claim, but Appellant’s arguments attacking
Siddavanahalli, Geisberger, and Cheng in isolation do not persuasively rebut
the underlying factual findings made by the Examiner, which are based upon
the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited references. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In Reply, Appellant contends the Examiner’s Answer incorrectly
equates a “person” in Siddavanahalli with the claimed “entit[ies].” Reply
Br. 3. But a few sentences later, Appellant provides examples of entities
including “an employee,” which undermines Appellant’s argument. See id.
at 4.
Also in the Reply Brief, Appellant contends the Examiner incorrectly
equates a “path spec” with an indirect link in Siddavanahalli. Id. However,
the Examiner applied Siddavanahalli’s “indirect links” against the same
claim limitation in the Final Action. Final Act. 4 (“link determination
module can store direct/indirect links and keep them in tables as shown
(maintain)”) (emphasis omitted). Appellant has not explained why this
argument, which Appellant could have raised in the Appeal Brief, was not
raised therein. See Appeal Br. 19 (addressing Siddavanahalli’s “direct link,”
but not Siddavanahalli’s indirect links).
We therefore do not consider this new argument. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2); see also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
Appeal 2019-001265
Application 14/231,472

5
(noting that an argument not first raised in the Brief to the Board is waived
on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, Appeal No. 2009-001280, 2010 WL
191183, at *3–*6 (BPAI 2010) (explaining that arguments and evidence not
timely presented in the principal Brief will not be considered when filed in a
Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument
could not have been presented in the Principal Brief).
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error with
respect to this limitation.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Siddavanahalli, Geisberger, and Cheng teaches or suggests “the relationship
specification includes . . . a forward or reverse context of following the
relationships,” as recited in claim 4? Appeal Br. 20–21.
Appellant contends Geisberger does not teach or suggest this
limitation because Geisberger’s weights do not show a relationship
“context,” which Appellant defines as an “environment or setting.” Id.
at 20. Appellant states this limitation is described in paragraph [28] of the
Specification, which describes, in part, “operation of the complex system 1
is modeled in software referred to herein as a ‘fault model’ 31 . . . . The
fault model 31 is essentially a database relating various data types, formula
and logic subroutines related to the complex system 1.” Id. at 20–21 (citing
Spec. ¶ 28). Appellant then contends that Geisberger’s “weighting of links
is not of the same (not various data types) and it does not provide a context
of the path flow.” Id. at 21.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that neither the claims nor
Specification define “context” as set forth in Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Ans.
Appeal 2019-001265
Application 14/231,472

6
14–15. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Appellant’s
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Id. at 15.
Appellant also raises additional arguments in the Reply Brief with
respect to this limitation that Appellant did not, but could have raised in its
Appeal Brief. See Reply Br. 4–5. We treat these arguments as waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1373; Ex parte Nakashima,
2010 WL 191183, at *3–*6. Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of
Examiner error with respect to this limitation.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Siddavanahalli, Geisberger, and Cheng teaches or suggests “selecting, by
user input enabled by the parent filter, an entity of the common destination
entity specification wherein a list of destination entities is reduced to only a
set of destinations entities linked by a determined path specification,” as
recited in claim 4? Appeal Br. 21–22.
Appellant contends that Cheng fails to teach or suggest this limitation.
Id. First, Appellant contends the claim “requires the parent filter feature as
described in paragraph [36] line[s] 1–8 of the present disclosure.” Id. at 21
(emphasis omitted). Then Appellant contends this feature is not present in
Cheng paragraph [80] because the “user selection of Cheng does not link or
reduce the list of destination entities to only a set of destination[] entities
linked by a determined path specification but simply enables the user to
select paths connecting to the user.” Id. at 21–22.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Appellant’s argument
impermissibly imports limitations from the Specification into the claims.
Ans. 23. The Examiner also finds that Appellant “omits more than half of
Appeal 2019-001265
Application 14/231,472

7
what was cited by the [E]xaminer for the limitation in question,” including
paragraphs [81], [82], and [85] of Cheng. Id.
In Reply, Appellant does not address either of the Examiner’s findings
but instead maintains its argument that Cheng’s paragraph [80] fails to
disclose the claim limitation. Reply Br. 5. We find the Appellant’s
arguments unpersuasive because they do not respond to the Examiner’s full
rejection. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant also argues against the combination, stating “the Examiner
has not provided a factual basis or articulated reasoning” for combining the
references. Appeal Br. 24. However, the Examiner did provide a factual
basis. See Final Act. 9–10, 13. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 4. Appellant’s arguments regarding the rejection of
independent claims 5 and 9 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and
there are no pending dependent claims. See Appeal Br. 25. We therefore
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 9. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § 
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
4, 5, 9 103 Siddavanahalli,
Geisberger, Cheng
4, 5, 9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED