Ex Parte Deng et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2012

10797266 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte YU DENG, HARUMI A. KUNO, and KEVIN L. SMATHERS
____________________

Appeal 2010-003485
Application 10/797,266
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE,
and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003485
Application 10/797,266

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 11-20 (App. Br. 2). Claims 1-10 and 21-25 have been withdrawn
(id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system comprising a
processor and a storage unit that contains elements of metadata belonging to
a plurality of schemas which map relationships between each element;
wherein, the relationships may be functional expressions executable by the
processor (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 11 is exemplary:
11. A method performed by at least one processor, the
method comprising:

generating a node to represent a functional relationship
between one or more objects of distinct ontologies in a
metadata system;

associating a metadata expression of the functional
relationship to the node; and

associating one or more parameters of the functional
relationship to the node.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Appeal 2010-003485
Application 10/797,266

3
Ardoin US 5,692,184 Nov. 25, 1997
Cui WO 03/030025 Al Apr. 10, 2003

Bonatti et al, “An Ontology-Extended Relational Algebra,” IEEE
Conference on Information Reuse and Integration, 192-199 (2003).

W3C, Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and
Abstract Syntax (2003).

Claims 11, 12, and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cui in view of Ardoin and Bonatti.
Claims 13, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cui in view of Ardoin, Bonatti, and W3C.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Cui, Ardoin, and Bonatti teaches or
would have suggested “generating a node to represent a functional
relationship between one or more objects of distinct ontologies in a metadata
system” and “associating a metadata expression of the functional
relationship to the node” (claim 11, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, each ontology represents a metadata
schema having a vocabulary of terms which may be processed by processors
106 and 108 (Spec. ¶ [0018]).
Appeal 2010-003485
Application 10/797,266

4
Cui
2. Cui discloses a database management system having a mapping
server 22 for heterogeneous information integration; wherein, node and link
representations are used to associate values from different resources to
address problems of semantic mismatch (of different ontologies) (Figs. 1 and
9; Abstract; p. 1, ll. 1-11 and p. 6, ll. 8-10).
3. The mapping server 22 stores mappings between resource
ontology and application/user ontology and stores generic conversion
functions which can be used to define a mapping from one ontology to
another (p. 6, ll. 8-10; p. 10, ll. 17-20). In particular, the system includes a
library of mappings and conversion functions for many standard translations,
i.e. converting kilos to pounds (p. 9, ll. 12-15).
4. The system serves as a mediator that is capable of interpreting
the mappings in order to translate between different ontologies (p. 9, ll. 12-
15).
Ardoin
5. Ardoin discloses a method for maintaining relationships
between entities in a computer system, each entity having a plurality of
nodes (Abstract).
6. There are two types of nodes disclosed: value nodes and
associative function nodes; wherein, value nodes represent a repository
having a value (input, output or a constrained argument of a predicate) and
an associative function node establishes dependency relations between value
nodes (col. 6, ll. 38-65).
Appeal 2010-003485
Application 10/797,266

5
Bonatti
7. Bonatti discloses a method and system for integration of data at
the semantic level between relational databases of differing ontologies;
wherein, an ontology extended relation (including a relation) that conveys
semantic meaning about the terms is used in a hierarchical/nodal mapping of
the terms (Fig. 1; Abstract; Sec. 3). In particular, where two different
databases having part information, one in US dollars and one in Euros, a
conversion function (Euro2Currency) is used to convert one currency (US
dollars) to another currency (Euros) (Sec. 2.1, paras. 1-2; Sec. 4, paras. 12-
13).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 11, 12, and 16-19
As to claim 11, Appellants contend that neither Ardoin nor Bonatti
disclose “associating a metadata expression of the functional relationship
(between one or more objects of distinct ontologies) to a node that
represents the functional relationship” (App. Br. 5). Appellants argue that
“no reason existed that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the teachings of Cui, Ardoin, and Bonatti” since “Cui
discloses a mapping server that stores mappings between ontologies;”
“[t]here is no teaching in Cui of functional relationships between one or
more objects of distinct ontologies;” and “Ardoin relates to defining
relations between nodes within just a single ontology” (App. Br. 6).
Appellants finally contend that “modifying Cui with the teachings of Bonatti
would have resulted in a significant change in the principle of operation of
the Cui system” (id.).
Appeal 2010-003485
Application 10/797,266

6
However, the Examiner finds that Appellants appear to be “attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references,” since “Ardoin is not the primary reference” and Cui discloses
that “that the system stores mappings between ontologies” (Ans. 9). The
Examiner notes that although “[t]he Cui reference did not explicitly teach
that the mappings included nodes or that the conversion functions (i.e. the
functional relationship) are associated with a node,” “Ardoin teaches the
usage of a variety of nodes to represent a map of the relationship from one
node to another node” (Ans. 9-10). The Examiner notes that “The Oxford
English Dictionary defines ‘distinct’ as … ‘[s]eparate or apart so as to be
capable of being distinguished, or as being different; not confounded with
each other, or with something else’” (Ans. 10). Since “Bonatti teaches
‘integrating different ontologies,’” “Bonatti teaches distinct ontologies”
(Ans. 11).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the
claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 11 does not place any limitation on what “distinct ontologies”
means, includes, or represents. As noted supra, “distinct” means
“‘[s]eparate or apart so as to be capable of being distinguished, or as being
different; not confounded with each other, or with something else’” (Ans.
10, emphasis removed). Furthermore, the Specification discloses that each
ontology represents a metadata schema having a vocabulary of terms
capable of being processed (FF 1). Thus, we give “distinct ontologies” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as differing metadata schema, each having
Appeal 2010-003485
Application 10/797,266

7
differing vocabularies of terms, as consistent with the Specification and as
specifically defined in claim 11.
Cui discloses a database management system having a mapping server
for heterogeneous information integration; wherein, node and link
representations are used to associate values from different resources to
address problems of semantic mismatch for different ontologies (FF 2 and
4). The system includes a library of mappings (between resource ontology
and application/user ontology) and conversion functions for many standard
translations (FF 3). We find that the node and link representations including
conversion functions comprise generating a node that defines functional
relationships between objects of different ontologies. That is, we find that
“generating a node to represent a functional relationship between one or
more objects of distinct ontologies in a metadata system” (claim 11) reads
on Cui’s node and link representations.
In addition, Ardoin discloses a method for maintaining relationships
between entities having a plurality of nodes (FF 5). The value nodes
represent a repository having a value, and the associative function node
establishes dependency relations between value nodes (FF 6). We find that
the associative node comprises associating an expression to the node and
that it represents a functional relationship between value nodes. That is, we
find that “associating a metadata expression of the functional relationship to
the node” (claim 11) reads on Ardoin’s associative function node.
Furthermore, Bonatti discloses a method and system for integration of
data at the semantic level between relational databases of differing
ontologies; wherein, when the databases have data of different currencies, a
conversion function is associated with the data (FF 7). We find that the
Appeal 2010-003485
Application 10/797,266

8
conversion function defines functional relationships between objects of
different ontologies and that it associates an expression with the node.
Therefore, we also find that “associating a metadata expression of the
functional relationship to the node” (claim 11) reads on Bonatti’s conversion
function.
Though Appellants also contend that “modifying Cui with the
teachings of Bonatti would have resulted in a significant change in the
principle of operation of the Cui system” (App. Br. 6), Appellants have not
provided support for this assertion.
Since Cui discloses a mapping server that generates node and link
representations that associate data from different ontologies, we conclude
that the combination of one known element (Cui’s mapping server) with
another (Ardoin’s associative function node or Bonatti’s currency function)
would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention. Thus, we find that generating a node representing
a functional relationship between objects of differing ontologies as taught by
Cui in addition to Ardoin’s associative function node or Bonatti’s currency
function is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements, with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no
more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Appellants have
presented no evidence that combining Cui’s mapping server with the
currency function of Bonatti’s was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one
Appeal 2010-003485
Application 10/797,266

9
of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior
art.” Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Cui in view of Ardoin and Bonatti. Similarly, independent
claim 18, having similar claim language, and dependent claims 12, 16, 17,
19, and 20 (depending from claims 11 and 18) which have not been argued
separately fall with claim 11.
Claim 15
Appellants contend that although Cui discloses “mappings between
ontologies,” “[t]here is no teaching or hint in Cui of mappings between
dependency chains spanning distinct ontologies” (App. Br. 6-7).
We adopt the Examiner’s finding that “[i]t appears that the
[Appellants have] only provided mere conclusory statements without
providing any evidence as to how the language of the claims differentiate the
claims from the cited prior art” (Ans. 14).
A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii). Moreover, mere attorney arguments and conclusory
statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see
also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and
Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843 at *3-4 (BPAI Aug.
10, 2009) (informative). Appellants’ arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR
1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a
Appeal 2010-003485
Application 10/797,266

10
patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of
the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cui in view of Ardoin and Bonatti.
Claims 13, 14, and 20
Appellants argue that claims 13, 14, and 20 are patentable over the
cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 11 (App.
Br. 7).
As noted supra, however, we find that Cui, Ardoin, and Bonatti at
least suggest all the features of claim 11. We therefore affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
same reasons expressed with respect to parent claim 11, supra.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb