Ex Parte Kalra et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 11, 201613538810 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/538,810 06/29/2012 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 07113/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Pavandeep Kalra 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. P5331US01 1039 EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIM T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/13/2016 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAV ANDEEP KALRA and SERGERY BOLDYREV Appeal2014-008259 Application 13/538,810 1 Technology Center 2100 Before THU A. DANG, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to real-time execution of computations of data based on context information upon collection, storage, retrieval, or use of the data. Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary of the matter on appeal: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation. App. Br.I. Appeal2014-008259 Application 13/538,810 1. i\ .. method comprising: determining context information associated with one or more data items stored at one or more nodes at substantially a time associated with a collection, a storage, a retrieval, a use, or a combination thereof of the one or more data items; detennining one or more computations for processing the one or more data items based, at least in part, on the context information; causing, at least in part, a serialization of the one or more computations, the context information, or a combination thereof; and determining to associate the serialization with the one or more data items. App. Br. 11 (Claims App.). THE REJECTION Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Chidlovskii (US 2012/0226651 Al; issued Sept. 6, 2012) ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner provides inadequate basis to support anticipation because there is "no substantive explanation of why the cited passages [Figs. 3-8; i1i1 0013---0019] of Chidlovskii [] disclose the claimed features of the independent claims." App. Br. 3-5 (referring to the Final Action). Appellants argue Chidlovskii does not teach or suggest the claim 1 limitation "determining context information associated with one or more data items stored at one or more nodes at substantially a time associated with a collection, a storage, a retrieval, a use, or a combination thereof of the one or more data items." Id. at 7. 2 Appeal2014-008259 Application 13/538,810 Regarding paragraph 13 of Chidlovskii, i\.ppellants argue: Chidlovskii simply suggests "integrating a number of different entities and relations between them, using the relations to build data models for different recommendation tasks, and finding the optimal contribution of each relation to a given recommendation task." However, clearly the above reproduced portion of Chidlovskii fails to disclose[] or even remotely suggest any determining at substantially a time associated with a collection, a storage, a retrieval, a use, or a combination thereof of one or more data items, much less in the context of the claims. App. Br. 8. According to Appellants: integrating different entities and relations or building data models for different recommendation tasks does not disclose determining the context information associated with the entities or the relations at substantially a time associated with a collection, a storage, a retrieval, a use, of the entities or the relations because the context information associated with the entities or the relations may be determined at another time not associated with a collection, a storage, a retrieval, a use of the entities or the relations. App. Br. 8. Appellants additionally argue the Examiner has not established the disputed claim limitation is inherently taught by Chidlovskii. Id. at 9. In the Answer, the Examiner refers to the Specification description of Real-time pattern recognition for tag generation and finds Chidlovskii teaches personal profiles and data from separate social networks are connected via common entities (such as common personal credentials). Ans. 3--4 (citing Spec. p 10; Fig. 3; ifif 14, 15). 3 Appeal2014-008259 Application 13/538,810 The Examiner additionally finds: For example, some social networking sites (such as Facebook.RTM., MySpace.RTM., Google Friend Connect.RTM.) provide an application programming interface (API) that allows for determining common users across platforms via social-network connectors. A recommendation task may involve recommending a tag for an image (patterns are determined from the image (or context information determined) in order to recommend a tag for an image), recommending a contact or group for a user, or recommending a user for a user. Additionally, as used herein, an "entity" is a description of single object about which data can be stored, and an instance of an entity is a single occurrence of the entity. For example, a social network may have a "user" entity, wherein an instance of the user entity is "Bob Jones." To this end, "instantiated" social media data refers to a collection of one or more social media data instances. Ans. 4--5. In Reply, Appellants argue: Chidlovskii does not explicitly disclose that any "patterns" are determined from an image, either in paragraphs [0014] and [0015] or in the remainder of Chidlovskii. Furthermore, Chidlovskii explicitly discloses that "recommending a tag for an image" does not require "patterns" or any other context information. For example, in paragraph [0014], Chidlovskii describes that tags may be applied to images by users of social network site. The application of a tag to an image is determined solely by the user. Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the Examiner's findings. The claim terms "context information" and "substantially a time associated with a ... " are not explicitly defined in the 4 Appeal2014-008259 Application 13/538,810 Specification, and i\~ppellants present no persuasive evidence \'l1hy the Examiner's findings and interpretations are overly broad or unreasonable. Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, our reviewing court cautions that great care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of the Specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although Appellants contend "Chidlovskii does not explicitly disclose that any 'patterns' are determined from an image," (Reply Br. 2), we note that the claim does not require any determination of "patterns." Instead, claim 1 merely requires "determining" any context information "associated with" a data item. As broadly, but reasonably interpreted, we agree Chidlovskii' s recommending a tag for a data item, such as an image, comprises determining "context information associated with" the data item. Ans. 4--5 (citing Fig. 3; i-fi-f 14--15); see also i-f 13. In particular, we agree that Chidlovski necessarily determines "context information associated with" an image (data item), including the context information within the tag itself, in order to recommend the tag for the image. Id. Also, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on Chidlovskii for disclosing that the tagging is done "at substantially a time associated with a collection, a storage, a retrieval, a use, or a combination thereof of the one or more data items." Id. (emphasis added). In particular, tagging an image as in Chidlovskii necessarily requires collection, storage, retrieval, or use of the image. See Fig. 3. Moreover, tagging the image is 5 Appeal2014-008259 Application 13/538,810 necessarily done at "substantially" a time "associated \'l1ith" accessing the image through collection, storage, retrieval, "or" use (claim 1 ). In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and independent claim 11 which recites the disputed limitation and is argued together with claim 1. App. Br. 9. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 as these claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation