Ahmed, Zahid et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 10, 2020

11647973 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 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.
11/647,973 12/29/2006 Zahid Ahmed 356821-991110 3073
26379 7590 11/10/2020
DLA PIPER LLP (US )
2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248
EXAMINER
SINGH, AMRESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/10/2020 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):
PatentDocketingUS-PaloAlto@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZAHID AHMED, ALAN BUSH, HERB STIEL,
SHASHI SURAVARAPU, and DAVID YEE
____________

Appeal 2019-003801
Application 11/647,973
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–46. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rogers family
Trust LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003801
Application 11/647,973

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is an object-oriented, semantic information
model that is the basis for a universal item schema framework. This
universal item information model enables consuming, sharing, and
publishing content in a system with various types of existing and user-
defined content from various sources. See Spec. 1–3. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for representing content in a system with a universal item
taxonomy, the method comprising:
providing a memory;
storing, in the memory, an abstract base type object for each
content definition, the abstract base type object having one or more
general characteristic elements of an object including an ltemID
element and a KindID element, the ItemID element specifies a unique
item identifier and the KindID element that specifies a unique
identifier that identifies a type of the content and a plurality of
semantic property elements of the type of content, the plurality of
sematic property elements including a user defined tag using free form
text, multiple system managed tags automatically generated including
a time tag, a person tag, a location tag, a category tag and a rating tag,
a note generated by a user about an item, a user connection that
connects related items and a system connection that is automatically
generated;
storing, in the memory, a plurality of base components, each
base component being a child of the abstract base type object and
inheriting the one or more general characteristics, each base
component being a container item kind that describes a type of object
and encapsulates the particular type of object; and
storing a new type of content item on the storage device using
the abstract base type object and the one of the base components.

Appeal 2019-003801
Application 11/647,973

3
THE REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1–15 and 17–463 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Clark (US 2005/0050054 Al; published Mar. 3, 2005),
Chau (US 2002/0133484 Al; published Sept. 19, 2002), and Xu (US
2007/0174247 Al; published July 26, 2007). Final Act. 7–16, 18.4
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Clark, Chau, and Shi (US 2006/0190475 Al; published
Aug. 24, 2006).5 Final Act. 17–18.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER CLARK, CHAU, AND XU
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Clark
discloses, among other things, storing an abstract base type object in Figure
7 including (1) an ItemID element (“ItemID: IdentityKey [1.1]”), and (2) a

2 Because the Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Ans.
3), that rejection is not before us.
3 Although the Examiner’s statement of the obviousness rejection over
Clark, Chau, and Xu omits claims 24–46, the Examiner nonetheless
indicates that these claims were rejected on a basis similar to that articulated
for claim 1. See Final Act. 18. Accordingly, we presume that claims 24–46
were rejected as obvious over Clark, Chau, and Xu. We, therefore, present
the correct claim listing here, and treat the Examiner’s error in this regard as
harmless.
4 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
December 1, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed January 2, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 14, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and (4) the Reply Brief filed April 15, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
5 Although the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 omits Xu despite the claim
depending from claim 14 that was rejected over Clark, Chau, and Xu, we
nonetheless reproduce the rejection here as articulated by the Examiner. We
also correct the Examiner’s misspelling of the Shi (not Shin) reference here
for clarity, and treat the Examiner’s error in this regard as harmless.
Appeal 2019-003801
Application 11/647,973

4
KindID element (“Base.IdentityKey”) that specifies a unique identifier
(Type:uniquieidentifier[1:1]”) identifying a content type and associated
property elements (“Categories:CategoryRef[0:*]”). Final Act. 7–8.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Clark lacks the recited semantic
property elements, the Examiner cites (1) Chau for teaching semantic
property elements, and (2) Xu for teaching semantic property elements with
the particular recited tags and connections. See Final Act. 9. Based on these
collective teachings, the Examiner concludes that the claim would have been
obvious. Final Act. 9–10.
Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the recited
abstract base type object with the recited ItemID and KindID elements,
where the latter element specifies (1) a unique identifier that identifies
content type, and (2) the specific recited semantic property elements.
Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 3–5. According to Appellant, not only do Clark
and Chau lack the recited KindID element that specifies a content type and
semantic property elements of that type, Xu does not disclose the recited
person and ratings tags, as well as the recited user connection that connects
related items. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 5.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Clark, Chau, and Xu collectively would have taught or suggested storing
an abstract base type object for each content definition, the object including
an ItemID element and a KindID element, where the ItemID element
specifies a unique item identifier, and the KindID element specifies a unique
identifier that identifies a type of the content and plural semantic property
Appeal 2019-003801
Application 11/647,973

5
elements of the content type, the semantic property elements including (1) a
user defined tag using free form text; (2) automatically-generated system
managed tags including a time tag, a person tag, a location tag, a category
tag and a rating tag; (3) a user-generated note about an item; (4) a user
connection that connects related items; and (5) an automatically-generated
system connection (“the abstract base type object limitation”)?

ANALYSIS
As noted above, claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, an abstract base type
object that includes (1) an ItemID element, and (2) a KindID element. As
claimed, the KindID element specifies (1) a unique identifier identifying the
type of content, and (2) plural semantic property elements of the content
type.
In the rejection, the Examiner finds that Clark’s abstract base type
object in Figure 7 includes (1) an ItemID element, namely “ItemID:
IdentityKey [1.1]”; and (2) a KindID element, namely “Base.IdentityKey,”
that specifies a unique identifier (Type:uniqueidentifier[1:1]”) identifying a
content type and associated property elements, namely
“Categories:CategoryRef[0:*].” Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 4.
We see no error in these findings. Although Appellant contends that
Clark does not disclose the recited KindID element specifying the particular
recited semantic property elements (Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 4), the
Examiner cites Chau and Xu collectively—not Clark—for teaching the
KindID element’s recited semantic property elements and their particulars,
and that, in light of these teachings, providing these semantic property
elements in connection with Clark’s KindID element would have been
Appeal 2019-003801
Application 11/647,973

6
obvious. See Final Act. 9–10; Ans. 4–5. Therefore, Appellant’s contentions
regarding Clark’s individual shortcomings in this regard (Appeal Br. 10;
Reply Br. 4) do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is not
based on Clark alone, but rather the cited references’ collective teachings.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As noted previously, the recited semantic property elements include
five key elements: (1) a user defined tag using free form text; (2)
automatically-generated system managed tags including a time tag, a person
tag, a location tag, a category tag and a rating tag; (3) a user-generated note
about an item; (4) a user connection that connects related items; and (5) an
automatically-generated system connection.
The Examiner finds that Chau teaches various semantic property
elements, including those in connection with the Extensible Style Language
Transformer (XSLT) that transforms XML documents, where XSLT
semantically defines elements in a specific XML namespace. See Final Act.
9–10; Ans. 6–7. The Examiner, however, acknowledges that Chau’s
semantic property elements lack the particular recited tags and connections,
but cites Xu to cure that deficiency in concluding that the claim would have
been obvious. See Final Act. 9–10; Ans. 6–7. Appellant’s contentions
regarding Chau’s individual shortcomings in connection with the recited
semantic property elements (Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 4–5) do not show
nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is not based on Chau alone, but
rather the cited references’ collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Xu for at
least suggesting the recited semantic property elements’ particular tags and
Appeal 2019-003801
Application 11/647,973

7
connections. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 10;
Reply Br. 5), Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding
that Xu’s tag-based searching functionality within a trusted social network
(e.g., friends and family) in paragraph 9 and user-based tags for rating
purposes in paragraph 65 at least suggest a “person tag.” See Final Act. 9;
Ans. 6. Nor does Appellant persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that
Xu’s rating-based annotations in paragraphs 26 and 27, which refer to any
descriptive or evaluative metadata related to a Web object as noted in
paragraph 26, at least suggests a “rating tag.” See Final Act. 9; Ans. 6.
We also see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Xu’s tag-based
searching functionality within a trusted social network (e.g., friends and
family) in paragraphs 9, 43, and 44 for at least suggesting a user connection
that connects related items. See Final Act. 9; Ans. 6. Appellant does not
squarely address—let alone persuasively rebut—the Examiner’s finding
based on Xu’s social graphing functionality that when a user shares
annotated content to others, such as friends or family, in a common social
network, the content is indirectly connected to the sharing user given this
common social network. Ans. 6. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence
on this record favors the Examiner.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–15 and 17–46 not argued separately with
particularity.6

6 Although Appellant nominally argues claim 24 separately (Appeal Br. 10–
11; Reply Br. 6), the arguments are similar to those made in connection with
claim 1. Accordingly, we group claim 24 and its dependent claims with
claim 1.
Appeal 2019-003801
Application 11/647,973

8

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 16.
Final Act. 17–18. Because this rejection is not argued separately with
particularity, we are not persuaded of error in this rejection for the reasons
previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–15,
17–46
103 Clark, Chau,
Xu
1–15, 17–
46

16 103 Clark, Chau,
Shi
16
Overall
Outcome
1–46

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED