Ex Parte Hao et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 10, 201612290281 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation