Cray Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 6, 20202018007160 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/090,754 04/05/2016 David Mizell 90837730 4143 56436 7590 05/06/2020 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 EXAMINER LE, UYEN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2020 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): chris.mania@hpe.com hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID MIZELL, CHRISTOPHER DOUGLASS RICKETT, and ANDREW STEVEN KOPSER ____________ Appeal 2018-007160 Application 15/090,754 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22, all of the pending claims. Appeal Br. 5.2 Claims 2–8, 10–14, 16–20, and 23 are canceled. Amdt. After 1 “Appellant” here refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Cray Inc. Appeal Br. 2. 2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.33 (“Amdt. After Appeal,” filed January 23, 2018), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed January 23, 2018), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 28, 2018); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed October 10, 2017), the Advisory Action (“Adv. Act,” mailed March 7, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 18, 2018); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed April 5, 2016). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings Appeal 2018-007160 Application 15/090,754 2 Appeal 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention relates to computer-readable media, methods, and computing systems “for identifying results of a query that includes a type predicate.” Spec. ¶ 17. The query may have a non-type query triple and a type query triple; the non-type query triple has a subject, a non-type predicate, and an object, and the type query triple has a subject, a type predicate, and an object. Id. The subjects and objects are entities. Id. In some embodiments, a search augmentation system maintains a collection of facts that includes a triple for each fact and a type table that maps entities of the facts to their corresponding type. For example, each fact may represent a triple that includes a subject, a predicate, and an object with the subject and the object each being an entity. The type table may have an entry for each entity along with the types of that entity. Id.; see id., Fig. 2. As noted above, claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22 stand rejected, and each of these claims is independent. Appeal Br. 32–35 (Claims App.). Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative. 1. A computer-readable storage medium that is not a transitory, propagating signal storing computer-executable instructions for controlling a computing system to provide results for a query by performing a method comprising: receiving a query having a non-type query triple and a type query triple, the non-type query triple having a subject, a non- type predicate, and an object, the type query triple having a and determinations and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. Appeal 2018-007160 Application 15/090,754 3 subject, a type predicate, and an object, the subjects and objects being entities; retrieving, from a fact table of triples, triples that match the non-type query triple; for each retrieved triple, when a type for an entity of the retrieved triple is specified by the query, retrieving from a type table an entry for the entity; and when the retrieved entry indicates that that entity is not associated with that type, indicating that the retrieved triple does not match the query; and providing as the results of the received query the retrieved triples except the retrieved triples that have been indicated as not matching the query. Id. at 32 (emphasis added). Claims 9, 15, 21, and 22 recite similar limitations, including those set forth in Appellant’s table. Reply Br. 4–5; but see Ans. 9. REFERENCES AND REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following references in rejecting the claims: Name3 Number Published Filed Srikanth US 2011/0196852 A1 Aug. 11, 2011 Feb. 5, 2010 Srinivasen US 2012/0303668 A1 Nov. 29, 2012 May 24, 2011 Specifically, claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Srinivasen and Srikanth.4 3 All reference citations are to the first named author or inventor only. 4 The Examiner also rejected the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite (Final Act. 5–6) and under the judicially-created doctrine of Appeal 2018-007160 Application 15/090,754 4 Final Act. 10–12.5 Appellant contests the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22. Appeal Br. 21–30; Reply Br. 1–5. We review the appealed rejection of the independent claims 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). We address the rejection of the independent claims below. ANALYSIS Non-Obviousness of Independent Claims Over Srinivasen and Srikanth As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Srinivasen and Srikanth. Final Act. 10–12. In particular, claim 1 recites, retrieving, from a fact table of triples, triples that match the non-type query triple; for each retrieved triple, when a type for an entity of the retrieved triple is specified obviousness-type double patenting (id. at 7–9). The Examiner has withdrawn each of these rejections. Adv. Act. 1; Ans. 3. 5 Although the Examiner finds Srinivasen “did not specifically detail the claimed exception” of the independent claims and Srikanth “disclosed the claimed exception” in the Final Office Action (Final Act. 12), in the Answer, the Examiner states “it is noted that the argued exclude[d] triples did not apply to any of the claims 1, 15, 21 and 22, because those claims did not cite any exclude[d] triples step, except claim 9” (Ans. 9). These inconsistent statements raise questions about the basis of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 15, 21, and 22. See Reply Br. 4–5 (persuasively showing excluded triples step in each independent claim); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(b) (procedure for responding to new ground of rejection in the Examiner’s answer). Nevertheless, because we reverse for other reasons, we need not address this inconsistency further. Appeal 2018-007160 Application 15/090,754 5 by the query, retrieving from a type table an entry for the entity; and when the retrieved entry indicates that that entity is not associated with that type, indicating that the retrieved triple does not match the query. Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Srinivasen discloses “retrieving, from a fact table of triples, triples that match the non-type query triple.” Final Act. 11 (citing Srinivasen, Figs. 2, 5, 6 (Resource Description Framework (RFD) data 200), ¶ 26 (“the RDF data 130 is formatted using the RDF language such that facts in this language are represented by RDF triples.”)). Further, the Examiner explains that Srinivasen discloses, for each retrieved triple, when a type for an entity of the retrieved triple is specified by the query and a type table indicates that that entity is not associated with that type, indicating that the retrieved triple does not match the query [e.g., per the RDF fact table (e.g., 200, Fig. 2 & 200, Fig. 5-6) and SPARQL application queries to decide null-ability at S.: 0045-0073, wherein the query block (e.g., 502, Fig. 5) derives the typed metadata table (e.g., 504, Fig. 5, 604, Fig. 6) from the RDF input fact table (e.g., 200, Fig. 2 & 5), the RDF fact table clearly include the claimed typed and non-typed triples such as those triples with typed or un-typed predicates, subjects and objects fields (e.g., 200 in Figs. 2 & 5- 6) and the derived metadata typed table/views (e.g., 504, Fig. 5, 604, Fig. 6) clearly did not indicated/count the entries that do not match / associated with the pre-defined “:rdf:type” by applying the query transformation function calls such as SEM_MATCH() and SEM_MODELS() or using other rules. For other details please referred to Fig. 9A-12 with associated texts] Id. (emphasis added). Appeal 2018-007160 Application 15/090,754 6 Srinivasen’s Figure 5, including our annotations, is reproduced below. Figure 5 depicts RFD data 200, query block 502, and the identification of metadata 504 for class information, including “student” class 506 within the metadata and count value 508 of the number of subjects, i.e., “John,” “Jill,” and “Mary,” that correspond to the class. Srinivasen ¶¶ 15, 46; see id., Fig. 6 (metadata 604), ¶ 49. We have annotated RDF data 200 to including count numbering 1, 2, and 3. We note, however, that the table of metadata 504 does not include the subjects, i.e., the entities. See Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.) (claim 1 recites “the subjects and objects being entities”); Spec. ¶ 18 (“the search augmentation system adds an entry to the type table that maps the entity ‘John Smith’ to the types of ‘politician’ and Appeal 2018-007160 Application 15/090,754 7 ‘professor.’”). Appellant challenges the proposed combination of the teachings of Srinivasen and Srikanth for at least three reasons. Appeal Br. 21–27; see Reply Br. 1–5 (Sections B–D). First, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show where Srinivasen teaches or suggests “a query having a non-type query triple and a type query triple.” Appeal Br. 21–23. Second, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show where Srinivasen teaches or suggests both a fact table and a type table. Id. at 23–26. Third, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show where Srikanth teaches or suggests excluding retrieved triples that do not match the query. Id. at 26–27; see Spec. ¶ 19; see also supra note 5 (the Examiner’s inconsistent findings). We are persuaded that at least Appellant’s second challenge identifies dispositive Examiner error. As noted above, claim 1 defines a “fact table” as comprised of “triples,” where “the non-type query triple having a subject, a non-type predicate, and an object, the type query triple having a subject, a type predicate, and an object.” Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.); see Spec. ¶ 2 (“The triples of a semantic data model may be stored in a semantic database that may include a fact table containing the triples representing the facts.”). Further claim 1 recites “a type for an entity of the retrieved triple is specified by the query.” Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.). The Specification explains, “[e]xamples of a type predicate include the ‘RDF:type’ predicate defined by the [RDF] and the ‘is-a’ or ‘is-a’ predicate of object-oriented programming. A non-type predicate is any predicate other than a type predicate, such as the ‘degree,’ ‘livesin,’ and ‘citizenof’ predicates described in the background section.” Spec. ¶ 17. Appeal 2018-007160 Application 15/090,754 8 Figure 2 of the instant application is reproduced below. Figure 2 depicts a block diagram illustrating the data structures of the search augmentation system, i.e., triples populating fact table 210 and entities and types drawn from the triples of fact table 210 populating type table 220. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 24; see Appeal Br. 23–24. Thus, we understand the fact table comprises data to which the recited query is applied and the type table comprises entities matched with types derived from the application of the query to the fact table. Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 20–22). Consequently, the type table allows provision of the subset of triples that match the types of the query triples for a given entity and excludes those that do not. See Spec. ¶¶ 6, 18; see also Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.) (claim 1 recites “when the retrieved entry indicates that that entity is not associated Appeal 2018-007160 Application 15/090,754 9 with that type, indicating that the retrieved triple does not match the query; and providing as the results of the received query the retrieved triples except the retrieved triples that have been indicated as not matching the query” (emphases added)). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s reliance on the teachings of Srinivasen’s Figures 5 and 6 to teach or suggest the recited type table is misplaced. Appeal Br. 24–25 (quoting Final Act. 11 (citing Srinivasen, Figs. 5, 6, ¶¶ 45, 46)). In particular, Appellant contends that neither metadata 504 of Figure 5 nor metadata 604 of Figure 6 “‘map[s] entities of the facts to their corresponding type’ as does a type table.” Id. at 25 (quoting Spec. ¶ 17). Appellant further contends: Although metadata 504 of Figure 5 includes the type “student,” metadata 504 is not a type table. Metadata 504 maps the type “student” (and any other types of the fact table 200) to a count of the facts (or triples) in fact table 200 that have “rdf:type” as the predicate and “student” as the object. In other words, metadata 504 simply maps types to counts. As specified by claim 1, the subject and the object of a triple are entities. Since a count is not a subject or object of a triple, the mapping of a type to a count is not a mapping from an entity to a type or even from a type to an entity. Metadata 604 of Figure 6 of Srinivasan provides a count of how many students in the fact table have the properties of “age” and “friendof.” The fact table 200 defines “John,” “Jill,” and “Mary” to be of the type “student,” but only “John” and “Jill” are the subject of triples with “age” as the predicate. Thus, metadata 604 maps the combination of “student” and “age” to the count of “2.” Since neither “age” nor “2” is a subject or object of a triple, metadata 604 does not map from entities to types or even from types to entities. Id.; see Reply Br. 3. In response to Appellant’s contentions, the Examiner merely restates Appeal 2018-007160 Application 15/090,754 10 the findings that table 200 of Srinivasen’s Figures 2 and 5 discloses the recited “fact table” of claim 1 and that metadata 504 of Srinivasen’s Figure 5 teaches or suggests the recited “type table” of claim 1. Ans. 8–9 (citing Srinivasen, Figs. 2, 5, ¶¶ 42–46). We find the Examiner’s finding regarding the recited type table conclusory and unpersuasive. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to show that Srinivasen teaches or suggests the recited type table. Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. Because we are persuaded the Examiner erred with respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 1, we also are persuaded the Examiner erred with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 9, 15, 21, and 22, each of which includes corresponding limitations. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of those claims. DECISIONS 1. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Srinivasen and Srikanth. 2. Thus, on this record, claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22 are not unpatentable.6 6 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether the pending claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter consistent with the Office’s most recent guidance. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019); see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (October 17, 2019). Appeal 2018-007160 Application 15/090,754 11 CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 9, 15, 21, and 22. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1, 9, 15, 21, 22 103 Srinivasen, Srikanth 1, 9, 15, 21, 22 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation