Ex Parte Desai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2013

11675692 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte ADITYA ABHAY DESAI, MANDAR U. JOG, and
JAMES CHARLES THORBURN
____________

Appeal 2010-010220
Application 11/675,692
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, HUNG H. BUI, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-010220
Application 11/675,692

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to reliability or integrity of data from a
data source. Spec. ¶1.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 13, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
1. A computer implemented method for increasing reliability
and completeness of data, comprising:
tagging data from a data source with an indication of reliability
based on characteristics of the data source, wherein the
indication of reliability is tagged to the data when the data
enters a data flow to a destination, and wherein the indication of
reliability is a predetermined level of a plurality of
predetermined levels;
determining the predetermined level of the indication of
reliability tagged to the data, wherein determining the
predetermined level of the indication of reliability comprises at
least one of:
determining the data source's reputation for providing reliable
data,
determining the geographic location of the data source,
determining a type of the data source,
determining a custodianship of the data source,
determining at what interval the data source is refreshed, and
transmitting the data with the indication of reliability tagged to
the data to the destination.

Appeal 2010-010220
Application 11/675,692

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
unpatentable over Moore (US 2006/0026123 A1).1 Ans. 3-9.

ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 4 through 6 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is in
error. These arguments present the Board with the following issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Moore teaches “the indication
of reliability is tagged to the data when the data enters a data flow
to a destination,” as recited in claim 1?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding that Moore teaches at least one of
the operations for determining the predetermined level of the
indication of reliability, as recited in claim 1?
Appellants’ arguments on pages 6 and 7 of the Appeal Brief directed
to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) present the
Board with the following additional issue:
3) Did the Examiner err in finding that Moore teaches “tagging the
data with reliability meta data corresponding to a confidence level
associated with the data source,” as recited in claim 2?

1 Additionally, the Examiner objected to claim 4 at least because claim
4 has been listed as cancelled. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2010-010220
Application 11/675,692

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments. We do not agree with Appellants’ conclusions.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
1) First Issue
We agree with the detailed findings and responses presented by the
Examiner showing that the disputed element of claim 1 is taught by Moore.
Ans. 3-4, 10-12. For example, in an excerpt of Moore cited by the
Examiner, Moore discloses, that “[t]he client calls the search service,
passing in a contract that represents the requested service behaviors, and
attaches to whichever web service has the highest reputation.” Moore ¶32.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with
the Examiner that this limitation is met by Moore.

2) Second Issue
Appellants contend that Moore does not teach the particular
operations recited in claim 1. Br. 5-6. Here, Appellants’ argument is not
commensurate with the scope of representative claim 1. As noted by the
Examiner, Ans. 12, claim 1 recites “wherein determining the predetermined
level of the indication of reliability comprises at least one of . . .” (emphasis
added). The Examiner has correctly found that Moore discloses, for
example, determining the data source’s reputation for providing reliable
data. Ans. 4, 12-13.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and
agree with the Examiner that this limitation is met by Moore. As explained
Appeal 2010-010220
Application 11/675,692

5
supra with respect to highlighted findings and arguments regarding the first
and second issues presented for claim 1, because we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), we
sustain the rejection.

3) Third Issue
Appellants contend that “Moore is merely looking at the accuracy of
the meta data . . . .” Br. 6. However, as explained by the Examiner, Moore
discloses tagging to the data the web service with the “highest reputation.”
Ans. 11, see also Ans. 14. Additionally, Moore discloses that this reputation
data corresponds to a level of confidence, “[a] client may desire to access the
web service having the highest or best reputation to be ensured of a greater
degree of accuracy and confidence.” Moore ¶32. Thus, we agree with the
detailed findings and responses presented by the Examiner showing that
Moore teaches that the data is tagged with reliability meta data
corresponding to a confidence level associated with the data source, as
recited in claim 2. Ans. 4, 13-14. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and,
therefore, we sustain that rejection.

The rejection of claims 3-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
With respect to the rejection of claims 4-20, Appellants allow those
claims to fall with claim 1 by relying on the same arguments presented for
the patentability of claim 1. Br. 7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appeal 2010-010220
Application 11/675,692

6
With respect to the rejection of claim 3, Appellants allow that claim to
fall with claims 1 and 2 by relying on the same arguments presented for the
patentability of claims 1 and 2. Br. 7. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

CONCLUSION
Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1 and 2 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) over Moore. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection
of claims 1 and 2, and of claims 3-20, falling therewith.

DECISION
We affirm 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc