Ex Parte Deolalikar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2016

12705585 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2016)

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.
12/705,585 02/13/2010 Vinay Deolalikar 82259744 8807
56436 7590 11/29/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
ELLIS, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2016 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 VINAY DEOLALIKAR, ALISTAIR VEITCH,
HERNAN LAFFITTE, IXAI LANZAGORTA OCHOA, and
CHARLES B. MORREY III
Appeal 2016-001082
Application 12/705,585
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-001082
Application 12/705,585
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a system and method for displaying
documents. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer system, comprising:
a processor that is adapted to execute machine-readable
instructions; and
a storage device that is adapted to store data, the data
comprising a plurality of documents and instructions that are
executable by the processor to generate a graphical user interface
(GUI), the GUI comprising:
a cluster map that includes the results of a clustering
algorithm applied to the documents; and
a principal documents screen that includes a list of
principal documents that are identified by weighting each of the
documents in a cluster based, at least in part, on an occurrence of
representative terms in the document, wherein the representative
terms are terms that have been identified by the clustering
algorithm as being more effective for distinguishing between
documents that belong to different clusters.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Scott et al. US 2002/0052862 A1 May 2, 2002
Marchisio US 2003/0217047 Al Nov. 20,2003
2
Appeal 2016-001082
Application 12/705,585
Frank
Wang et al.
Borchardt et al.
Corston-Oliver et al.
US 2004/0236730 Al
US 6,925,485 B1
US 2007/0109297 Al
US 7,788,087 B2
Nov. 25, 2004
Aug. 2, 2005
May 17, 2007
Aug. 31,2010
J. Cheney et al., “Provenance in Databases: Why, How, and Where,”
FOUNDATIONS AND TRENDS IN DATABASES, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 379-
474 (2007).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Borchardt in view of Marchisio.
Claims 2-4, 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Borchardt, in view of Marchisio, and further in view
of Carston-Oliver.
Claims 7, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Borchardt, in view of Marchisio, in view of Scott, and
further in view of Cheney.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Borchardt, in view of Marchisio, in view of Scott, and further in view
of Frank.
Claims 9, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Borchardt, in view of Marchisio, in view of Scott, and
further in view of Wang.
Claims 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Borchardt, in view of Marchisio, and further in view of
Scott.
3
Appeal 2016-001082
Application 12/705,585
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 17
With respect to claims 1,5,6, and 17, Appellants argue the claims
together. (App. Br. 6). As a result, we select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for the group and will address Appellants’ arguments
thereto. Appellants contend that:
The present techniques generally relate to displaying
related groups of documents. See Specification, para. [0058].
Specifically, the present specification discloses that by using a
graphical user interface (GUI), a user may quickly and easily
locate and select the most relevant documents of interest within
a large collection of unstructured documents based on user
preference.
(App. Br. 7—8). Appellants additionally contend that:
In contrast, Borchardt does not disclose a separate
principle documents screen that displays the list of principle
documents, as claimed. Rather, Borchardt provides a single two-
dimensional screen that displays clusters of individual
documents in the form of cluster spines where a more focused
view and search within the documents may be displayed. See
Borchardt, paras. [0043], [0047], [0087] .... Instead, the
Examiner references Marchisio to disclose the claimed subject
matter. However, Marchisio fails to remedy the deficiencies of
Borchardt, either alone or in any combination with Borchardt.
(App. Br. 8). Appellants argue:
Marchisio is generally related to latent semantic based
information retrieval, and more particularly, to a system that
recasts measurement of the similarity between a query and a
number of document projections. See Marchisio, para. [0018].
The techniques in Marchisio create a term-document matrix for
an indication of the occurrence of terms for an electronic file. See
paras. [0037] and [0062], The matrix is combined with a user
4
Appeal 2016-001082
Application 12/705,585
query to augment the term-document matrix. See id., paras.
[0041], [0043], [0063]. A list of documents is generated based
on the semantics of the user query. See id., paras. [0062] and
[0063]. Thus, Marchisio merely provides a term-document
matrix that is augmented through a user query and projection. See
id., paras. [0043], [0062], and [0063].
However, Marchisio does not teach identifying principal
documents using “representative terms,” as that term is used in
the present claims. As recited in the claims, “the representative
terms are terms that have been identified by the clustering
algorithm as being more effective for distinguishing between
documents that belong to different clusters.” It is these
representative terms that are used to identify the principal
documents by “weighting each of the documents in a cluster
based, at least in part, on an occurrence of representative terms
in the document.” By contrast, Marchisio does not teach the use
of representative terms to identify documents. To the extent that
Marchisio identifies documents of interest, it merely identifies
documents based on terms received in a user query. Thus,
Marchisio fails to teach a list of principal documents identified
through weighting based on the claimed representative terms.
(App. Br. 9).
The Examiner agrees with Appellants that the Borchardt reference
does not teach the claimed “principal documents screen that includes a list of
principal documents,” but maintains the Marchisio reference was relied upon
to teach and suggest the claimed limitation. (Ans. 3). The Examiner
specifically identifies 1106 of the Marchisio reference which shows a list of
documents based on specific terms. (Ans. 3). We agree with the Examiner.
The Examiner further finds Appellants are not “[r]eading the rejection as a
whole,” and the Examiner further explains the application of the prior art
teachings relying upon the Marchisio reference. (Ans. 3—4). The Examiner
further finds that the application of the prior art is in accordance with
5
Appeal 2016-001082
Application 12/705,585
Appellants’ Specification (Spec. 132). (Ans. 4). We agree with the
Examiner.
Appellants contend that the Marchisio reference does not identify
principal documents using “representative terms,” as that term is used in the
present claims. (Reply Br. 3). Appellants repeat the language of the claim
and maintain the Marchisio reference does not teach the use of such
representative terms to identify documents. (Reply Br. 3).
Specifically, Appellants contend:
Marchisio does not teach the use of such representative terms to
identify documents. To the extent that Marchisio identifies
documents of interest, it merely identifies documents based on
terms received in a user query. Thus, Marchisio fails to teach a
list of principal documents identified through weighting based on
the claimed representative terms.
(Reply Br. 3).
We find that Appellants’ argument is based upon a “wherein” clause,
which does not limit the claimed “a principal documents screen that includes
a list of principal documents that are identified by weighting each of the
documents in a cluster based . . . .” Consequently, Appellants’ argument is
based upon the premises that the “list” on the screen of the Marchisio
reference is different than the “list” on the screen of the apparatus of
representative independent claim 1. We find Appellants’ argument to be
unavailing to show error in the Examiner’s reasoned conclusion of
obviousness. Appellants further contend that there is a difference between
relevance values and representative terms as the terms are used in the current
Specification. Appellants identify various automatic features of the
disclosed invention. (Reply Br. 3—5). We disagree with Appellants’
6
Appeal 2016-001082
Application 12/705,585
contention and find Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with
the broad language of representative apparatus claim 1.
We find that Appellants have not identified any express definition in
the Specification to differentiate the claimed “list” of the claimed apparatus
from the list of the Marchisio reference. With respect to the claimed
“wherein the representative terms are terms that have been identified by the
clustering algorithm as being more effective for distinguishing between
documents that belong to different clusters,” we find Appellants’
Specification recites the claim term “more effective” in paragraphs 27, 58,
60, but does no more than recite the same language without further details or
context. As a result, Appellants’ reliance upon the content of the list does
not show error in the Examiner’s findings of fact or conclusion of
obviousness of representative apparatus claim 1. As a result, we sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 5, 6, and 17, which are not
separately argued.
Claims 2—4, 11, 12, and 16
With respect to claims 2-4, 11, 12, and 16, Appellants argue the
claims together. (App. Br. 10). As a result, we select independent claim 11
as the representative claim for the group and will address Appellants’
arguments thereto. Appellants repeat the language of independent claim 11
and maintain the same argument advanced with respect to independent claim
1. Appellants further contend the Carston-Oliver reference fails to remedy
the deficiencies of the Borchardt and Marchisio references, either alone or in
any type of hypothetical combination with Borchardt and Marchisio.
(App. Br. 10-11). Because we found Appellants’ argument to be
unpersuasive with respect to independent claim 1, we similarly find it
unpersuasive with respect to independent claim 11 and sustain the rejection
7
Appeal 2016-001082
Application 12/705,585
for the same reasons and group independent claim 16 and dependent claims
2-4 and 12 as falling with representative independent claim 11.
Claims 7, 13, and 18
With respect to claims 7, 13, and 18, Appellants argue the claims
together. (App. Br. 11). Asa result, we select dependent claim 7 as the
representative claim for the group. Appellants rely upon the arguments
advanced with respect to independent claim 1 and contend that the Scott and
Cheney references do not remedy the deficiency in the base combination.
(App. Br. 11—12). Because we found Appellants’ argument to be
unpersuasive with respect to independent claim 1, we similarly find it
unpersuasive with respect to dependent claim 7 and sustain the rejection for
the same reason and group claims 13 and 18 as falling with representative
dependent claim 7.
Claims 8—10, 14, 15, 19, and 20
With respect to claims 8—10, 14, 15, 19, and 20, Appellants rely upon
the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1 and contend
that the Scott, Wang, and Frank references do not remedy the deficiency in
the base combination. (App. Br. 13—16). Because we found Appellants’
argument to be unpersuasive with respect to independent claim 1, we
similarly find it unpersuasive with respect to dependent claims 8—10, 14, 15,
19, and 20 and sustain the rejections of these claims for the same reason and
group claims 8—10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 as falling with representative
independent claim 1.
8
Appeal 2016-001082
Application 12/705,585
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 based upon
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-20.
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
9