Ex Parte Hao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2016

12290281 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/290,281 10/28/2008 MingC. Hao
56436 7590 03/14/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82243010 2585
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2016 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 MING C. HAO, UMESHW AR DAY AL,
CHANTAL TREMBLAY, and RAM RANGANATHAN
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-23. (App. Br. 5). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to an automated visual analysis of
nearby markings of a visualization to understand relationships among
different types of data and to identify exceptions. (Spec. i-fi-f l-2). Claims 1
and 15, reproduced below, are exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method to automatically visually analyze, in real-time,
a relationship in data records that are presented by a visualization
containing cells representing corresponding data records,
compnsmg:
receiving identification of a threshold of interest for a
particular one of attributes in the data records;
automatically marking, by a computer, nearby areas in the
visualization based on the threshold, wherein the marked nearby
areas each contains a cell representing a respective data record
having the particular attribute that has a predefined relationship
to the threshold;
mining, by the computer, data records represented by cells
in the marked nearby areas to determine at least one relationship
bet\~1een the particular attribute and at least one other attribute,
and to identify information associated with an exception; and
providing, for display in a graphical element, a result of
the mined at least one relationship.
15. A method of analyzing data records, comprising:
receiving selection of an attribute of interest, the attribute
of interest contained in the data records;
receiving a threshold of interest;
automatically marking, by a computer, nearby areas in a
visualization based on the threshold, wherein the marked nearby
areas each contains a respective cell representing a
corresponding data record having the attribute exceeding the
threshold, and wherein each of the marked nearby areas contains
cells surrounding the respective cell that represents the
corresponding data record having the attribute that exceeds the
threshold;
2
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
rece1vmg user selection, in the visualization, of a
particular one of the marked nearby areas;
in response to receiving the user selection of the particular
marked nearby area, mining data records represented by cells in
the particular marked nearby area; and
providing, for display, a detail related to mining of the data
records represented by cells in the particular marked nearby area.
The Examiner's Rejections
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
I. Claims 1-14 and 21-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph (pre-AIA), for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
II. Claims 1, 3, 7-15, 18, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Agrawal et
al. (US 6,003,029; issued Dec. 14, 1999), MacGregor (US 7,194,465 Bl;
issued Mar. 20, 2007), and Paolo Buono et al., Interactive Pattern Search in
Time Series (2004), TR 2005-57, Institute for Systems Research (2004)
(hereafter "TimeSearcher").
III. Alternatively, claims 1, 3, 7-15, 18, and 21-23 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Agrawal and Ming C. Hao et al., Intelligent Visual Analytics Queries, Visual
Analytics Science and Technology (2007).
IV. Claims 2, 4--6, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Agrawal,
MacGregor, TimeSearcher, and Faltings et al. (US 5,784,540; issued July
21, 1998).
3
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
V. Alternatively, claims 2, 4---6, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Agrawal, Hao, and Faltings.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1-35 USC § 112. 1!2 Rejections of Claims 1-14. 21. and 22
" b " near y ...
The Examiner finds claims 1-14, 21, and 22 are indefinite because the
relative reference "nearby" is unclear because no point of reference is
established and the question "nearby to what?" cannot be deciphered from
the claim language. (Final Act. 2-3). The Examiner finds Appellants'
Specification describes a nearby area being dependent on the existence of a
point of reference cell and surrounding the point of reference cell, which is
absent in the claims. (Ans. 48-51).
Appellants contend the claim language describes the "nearby areas" as
"marked based on a threshold" and "each contains a cell representing a
respective data record having the particular attribute that has a predefined
relationship to the threshold" so one of ordinary skill in the art would be able
to ascertain the scope of the language. (App. Br. 5---6). Appellants also
argue paragraph 7 of Appellants' Specification, which states "[a Jn area
having some predefined size surrounding at least one cell associated with a
data record having the particular attribute that exceeds the threshold is
marked" and "[ m ]arking such an area surrounding the cell is also referred to
as identifying a nearby area that includes cells corresponding to nearby time
4
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
interval records[,]" provides clear support for the language. (App. Br. 6; see
also Reply Br. 2-3).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, requires the claims "be cast in clear--as opposed to
ambiguous, vague, indefinite--terms." In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313
(Fed. Cir. 2014). Although exact precision is not required, the clairn
language must be as reasonably precise as the subject matter pe1mits. ld.
As presently written, it is not readily apparent to what the marked areas are
nearby. We agree with the Examiner that the point of reference cell is
absent from the claim language. Moreover, paragraph 7 of Appellants'
Specification, which Appellants rely on, describes the nearby marked areas
as surrounding a reference cell.
Although Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that the use of the term
"contains" encompasses the term "smTounds," (Reply Br. 2----3) this argument
is inconsistent both with Appellants' Specification and the language used in
independent claim 15, which describes "marking ... nearby areas .. .
wherein the marked nearby areas each contains a respective cell ... and
wherein each of the marked nearby areas contains cells surrounding the
respective cell." \Ve note that the Examiner did not reject independent claim
15 on 35 U.S.C. § 112, i12 grounds. We agree with the Examiner that use of
the te1m "contains" may lack adjacency (Ans. 49), and AppeUants'
Specification describes such nearby areas as surrounding the reference cell.
(See Specification iii! 7, 17, 19, 21, Fig. 2).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-14, 21, and 22 as indefinite based on the recitation of "nearby."
5
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
"the particular attribute ... ;;
The Examiner also finds claims 1-14, 21, and 22 are indefinite
because the term "having the particular attribute that has a predefined
relationship to the threshold" lacks antecedent basis. (Final Act. 3). The
Examiner finds "[i]t is unclear whether this 'particular attribute' here
references the same 'particular one of attributes' described in 'receiving
identification of a threshold of interest for a particular one of attributes in the
data records,' since there is no mention of a 'predefined relationship' in the
first instance." (Id.; see also Ans. 52).
Appellants contend "the particular attribute" has antecedent support in
the "receiving ... " clause, which recites "a particular one of attributes in the
data records." (App. Br. 7). Appellants argue "[t]he presence of the
language 'that has a predefined relationship to the threshold' that follows
'the particular attribute' merely further defines what is meant by 'the
particular attribute' that has antecedent basis in 'a particular one of attributes
in the data records."' (Reply Br. 4 ).
We agree with Appellants that "a particular one of attributes" provides
antecedent basis for "the particular attribute." If the scope of a claim would
be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the mi, then the claim is not
indefinite. Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int 'l Trade Comm 'n, 435 F.3d 1366,
1371 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that "anode gel" provided by implication the
antecedent basis for "zinc anode"); Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1145
(Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ("controlled stream of fluid'' provided
reasonable antecedent basis for "the controlled fluid"). We are persuaded
that when the disputed limitations of Appellants' claims 1-14, 21, and 22 are
read in light of Appellants' Specification a skilled artisan would understand
6
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
their scope and meaning with reasonable certainty. Moreover, the recitation
to !!. predefined relationship is the first instance of that term, and we agree
with Appellants that it merely further defines what is meant by "the
particular attribute."
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding the
recitation of "the particular attribute" renders claims 1-14, 21, and 22
indefinite.
Nonetheless, because the Examiner correctly concludes the term
"nearby" renders these claims indefinite, we sustain the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2 rejection of claims 1-14, 21, and 22.
RejectionII-35US.C.§103 Rejection o(Claims 1. 3. 7-15. 18. and 21-23
as being unpatentable over Agrawal. MacGregor. and TimeSearcher
Claim 15
" . 11 Ir" " aittomatzca,,,,}' mar,..,zng ...
Appellants contend Agrawal does not teach or suggest "automatically
marking, by a computer, nearby areas in a visualization based on the
threshold, wherein the marked nearby areas each contains a respective cell
representing a corresponding data record having the attribute exceeding the
threshold, and wherein each of the marked nearby areas contains cells
surrounding the respective cell that represents corresponding data record
having the attribute exceeding the threshold" as recited in independent claim
15 and commensurately recited in independent claims 1 and 19. (App. Br.
7-10, 14, 18).
7
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
Appellants argue identifying dense units in Agrawal does not teach or
suggest marking nearby areas containing a respective cell representing a
corresponding data record having the attribute exceeding the threshold.
(App. Br. 9). Rather, Appellants contend a dense unit refers to a unit having
a density of various data points. (App. Br.) Therefore, Appellants contend
the density of a unit in Agrawal is based on the presence of a number of
points as compared to some average value, rather than "determining any
attribute of any individual data record." (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 7-8).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner relies
on Figures 1 and 2 and column 4, lines 29-30 and 60-65 to teach or suggest
the disputed limitation. (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification,
a "data record" is merely data that is recorded. (Ans. 56). Moreover, based
on Appellants' use of the terms "cell" and "data record" in Appellants'
Specification, the Examiner finds a data record might range from a cell itself
to an object mapped to a cell. (Id. citing Spec. i-fi-1 8-10). The Examiner
therefore finds, and we agree, Figure 1 of Agrawal depicts cell "d," which is
a respective cell representing a corresponding data record having the
attribute exceeding the threshold, because it represents a record of data that
has a density attribute that exceeds the named A fraction. (Ans. 57; see also
Final Act. 13, citing Agrawal Fig. 1, 2, col. 4, 11. 29-30, 60-65; col. 3, 11.
26-41; Final Act. 46). In addition, the Examiner finds the neighboring cells
in Figure 1 of Agrawal (for example, cell "A" or the cells above or next to
cell "d") that exceed the density threshold are also marked, thereby marking
nearby areas. (Ans. 57) We agree with the Examiner that the claim
8
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
language does not require determining an attribute of any individual data
record, as Appellants argue. (Ans. 56-57).
Appellants contend a data record cannot be synonymous with a cell
because the Specification and the claim language state a cell represents a
corresponding data record. (Reply Br. 8, citing Spec. i-f 14). We are not
persuaded. Appellants have not explicitly defined a "cell representing a
corresponding data record" in the Specification. Paragraph 14 of
Appellants' Specification describes Figure 1 and shows block 106, which
represents a time series of data records and includes a sub-array of cells,
where each cell represents a corresponding time interval data record.
According to Figure 1, a cell is merely a visualization of a corresponding
data record having a particular attribute at some time interval. (Spec. i-fi-1 4,
5, 6, 10, 11, 14). Paragraph 14 states that "the color of each cell represents
the value of a measured attribute (referred to as a 'coloring attribute')."
Paragraph 15, still describing Figure 1, states "[a] scale 104 is provided [on]
the visualization screen 100 to show mapping between values of the coloring
attribute of the data records and corresponding colors." The Examiner's
findings pertaining to cell "d" in Figure 1 of Agrawal likewise represent the
value of a measured attribute (density) of a record of data.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Agrawal teaches or suggests the "automatically marking ... "limitation.
"in response to receiving ... "
Appellants contend MacGregor does not teach or suggest "in response
to receiving the user selection of the particular marked nearby area, mining
data records represented by cells in the particular marked nearby area" as
9
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
recited in independent claim 15 and commensurately recited in independent
claims 1and19. (App. Br. 12, 14, and 18). Specifically, Appellants argue
"[t]he selected OLAP data cube of MacGregor cannot constitute the selected
particular marked nearby area of claim 15" because there is no indication
that the "selected data cube is a nearby area marked based on a threshold,
where the marked nearby area contains a cell representing a corresponding
data record having the attribute exceeding the threshold." (Id. at 12-13).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions. Appellants are
attacking MacGregor in isolation, rather than as combined with Agrawal and
TimeSearcher. However, nonobviousness "cannot be established by
attacking references individually" when the rejection is based on the
teachings of a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800
F .2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). As discussed above, the
Examiner relies on Agrawal to teach the marked nearby areas as argued by
Appellants. (See Final Act. 13; Ans. 53---60). Appellants' arguments against
MacGregor individually do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
findings that the combination of Agrawal, MacGregor, and TimeSearcher
teach or suggest the "in response to receiving ... " limitation.
"receiving user selection ... "
Appellants contend TimeSearcher does not teach or suggest
"receiving user selection, in the visualization, of a particular one of the
marked nearby areas" as recited in independent claim 15. (App. Br. 13).
Specifically, Appellants argue TimeSearcher refers to a user drawing a
time box, which "provides no teaching or hint of receiving user selection of a
particular marked nearby area, where the marked nearby area is marked
10
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
based on a threshold, and the marked nearby area contains a respective cell
representing a corresponding data record having the attribute exceeding the
threshold." (App. Br. 13).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Appellants are
attacking TimeSearcher individually rather than as combined with Agrawal
and MacGregor. As discussed above, the Examiner relies on Agrawal to
teach the marked nearby areas as argued by Appellants. (See Final Act. 13;
Ans. 53---62). Appellants' arguments against TimeSearcher individually
therefore do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings that the
combination of Agrawal, MacGregor, and TimeSearcher teach or suggest the
"receiving user selection ... " limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 15.
Claim 1
In addition to arguments as discussed above pertaining to the
"automatically marking ... "and "mining ... "limitations, Appellants assert
the combination of Agrawal, MacGregor, and TimeSearcher does not teach
or suggest "providing, for display, a detail related to mining of the data
records represented by cells in the particular marked nearby area." (App. Br.
14). However, Appellants have not presented persuasive arguments as to
why Agrawal, MacGregor, and TimeSearcher do not teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. To the extent Appellants are advancing the same
argument with respect to the "marked nearby area" language, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred for the same reasons as discussed above.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
11
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Agrawal, MacGregor, and TimeSearcher.
Claim 7
Appellants contend Agrawal does not teach or suggest "determining
whether at least two of the marked nearby areas occur in a column of the
visualization; and in response to determining that the at least two marked
nearby areas occur in the column, combining the at least two marked nearby
areas into a larger marked area," as recited in claim 7. (App. Br. 14--15).
Specifically, Appellants argue Agrawal's "general assertion of grouping
together dense units lying in the same subspace falls short of the specific
language of claim 7." (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 14).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. In particular, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, that Agrawal teaches or at least suggests the
disputed limitation because the dense cells in Agrawal (for example, cell "d"
and its immediate top neighbor in Figure 1, which would occur in a
"column"), may be combined with neighboring cells into a cluster or group.
(Ans. 65; See Agrawal, col. 3, 1. 40; col. 5, 11. 42--43, 65-67). Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 7
as being unpatentable over the combination of Agrawal, MacGregor, and
Time Searcher.
Claims 12 and 13
Appellants contend Agrawal does not teach or suggest "based on data
records represented by cells contained in the marked nearby areas, producing
second marked areas corresponding to data records having a second
12
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
attribute exceeding a second threshold" as recited in claim 12. (App. Br.
16). Appellants argue assigning cluster identifications as described in
Agrawal does not teach or suggest a second attribute exceeding a second
threshold. (App. Br. 16).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner relies on
column 5, line 65, through column 6, line 15, of Agrawal, which describes
assigning cluster identifications. (Final Act. 11 ). Then, relying on Figure 1,
the Examiner finds the first attribute to be the density of cell "d" and the
second attribute to be the density of neighboring cell "A," both of which are
compared to threshold A. (Ans. 67). We agree with Appellants that the
portions of Agrawal cited by the Examiner do not teach or suggest a second
attribute exceeding a second threshold. Rather, the citations to Agrawal
simply teach one attribute (density) and one threshold (A.).
The Examiner does not rely on MacGregor or TimeSearcher, or Hao
with respect to the disputed recitation of claim 12. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 12, and claim
13 which depends therefrom, as being unpatentable over Agrawal,
MacGregor, and TimeSearcher.
Claims 3, 8-11, 14, 18, and 21-23
Appellants have not separately argued dependent claims 3, 8-11, 14,
18, and 21-23. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 3, 8-11, 14, 18, and 21-23 as being unpatentable over
the combination of Agrawal, MacGregor, and TimeSearcher for the same
reasons as set forth above with respect to independent claims 1 and 15.
13
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
RejectionIII-35 USC§· 103 Rejection o(Claims 1. 3. 7-15. 18. and 21-
23 as being unpatentable over Agrawal and Hao
Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14, 15, 18, and 21-23
Our affirmance of the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
these claims as being unpatentable over Agrawal, MacGregor, and
TimeSearcher is dispositive. It is not necessary, therefore, to address the
other, cumulative grounds of rejection entered by the Examiner in Rejection
III. See In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that
affirmance of rejection of all claims under§ 103(a) made it unnecessary to
reach other grounds of rejection); Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421,
1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that by deciding a single dispositive issue,
the ITC was not required to review other matters decided by the presiding
officer). Therefore, we do not reach the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Agrawal and Hao.
Claims 12 and 13
As discussed above with respect to the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Agrawal, MacGregor,
and TimeSearcher, the Examiner's findings do not show that Agrawal
teaches or suggests "based on data records represented by cells contained in
the marked nearby areas, producing second marked areas corresponding to
data records having a second attribute exceeding a second threshold" as
recited in claim 12. The Examiner does not rely on Hao with respect to this
disputed recitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 12, and claim 13 which depends
therefrom, as being unpatentable over Agrawal and Hao.
14
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
Rejection IV - Rejection of Claims 2. 4-6. 16. 17. 19. and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal. MacGregor.
TimeSearcher. and F altings
Claim 19
In addition to the arguments as set forth with respect to claim 15 and
the "automatically marking ... " and "in response to ... " limitations as
discussed above, Appellants contend Agrawal does not teach or suggest
"identify a cell representing a data record that has the attribute exceeding the
threshold" as recited in independent claim 19. (App. Br. 17-18).
Specifically, Appellants contend that marking a box in a grid does not
involve the identification of a cell that represents a data record that has an
attribute exceeding the threshold. (App. Br. 17-18). Further, Appellants
contend, as above with respect to the "automatically marking ... " limitation,
that Agrawal's identification of dense regions does not involve identifying a
cell that represents an individual data record that has an attribute that
exceeds a threshold. (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 17-18).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. For the same
reasons as set forth above with respect to the "automatically marking ... "
limitation, we agree with the Examiner that Agrawal identifies a cell (cell
"d") representing a data record (cell "d" represents recorded data) that has an
attribute (density) exceeding a threshold (A.). (Ans. 69).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons we sustain the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 19 as being unpatentable
over Agrawal, MacGregor, TimeSearcher, and Faltings.
15
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
Claim 20
Appellants contend Agrawal does not teach or suggest "wherein
combining the marked nearby areas if the marked areas occur in the particular
portion of the visualization comprises combining the marked areas if the
marked areas occur in a column of the visualization." (App. Br. 19). Similar
to Appellants' argument with respect to claim 7, Appellants argue Agrawal
does not describe combining marked areas if the marked areas occur in a
column of the visualization. (Id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for substantially the
same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 7. We agree with the
Examiner that the dense cells in Agrawal (for example, cell "d" and its
immediate top neighbor in Figure 1, which are a column), may be combined
with neighboring cells into a cluster or group. (Ans. 70; See Agrawal, col. 3,
1. 40; col. 5, 11. 42--43, 65---67). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 20 as being unpatentable over
Agrawal, MacGregor, TimeSearcher, and Faltings.
Claims 2, 4-6, 16, and 17
Appellants have not separately argued dependent claims 2, 4---6, 16,
and 17. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 2, 4---6, 16, and 17, as being unpatentable over Agrawal,
MacGregor, TimeSearcher, and Faltings, for the same reasons as set forth
above with respect to independent claims 1 and 15.
16
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
Rejection V - Rejection of Claims 2. 4-6. 16. 17. 19. and 20 under 35 US. C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal. Hao. and Faltings
Our affinnance of the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
these claims as being unpatentable over Agrawal, MacGregor,
TimeSearcher, and Faltings is dispositive. Therefore, we do not reach the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of these claims as being
unpatentable over Agrawal, Hao, and Faltings.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2 rejection of claims 1-
14 and 21-22 is affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14,
15, 18, and 21-23 as being unpatentable over the combination of Agrawal,
MacGregor, and TimeSearcher (Examiner Rejection II) is affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 4---6, 16, 17,
19, and 20 as being unpatentable over Agrawal, MacGregor, TimeSearcher,
and Faltings (Examiner Rejection IV) is affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 12 and 13 are
reversed.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(l).
17
Appeal2014-004426
Application 12/290,281
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
18