Ex Parte Paliwal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 201611543635 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111543,635 10/04/2006 50400 7590 05/16/2016 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 Aabhas V. Paliwal 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. 2058.139US1 7499 EXAMINER MUELLER, KURT A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2157 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2016 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AABHAS V. P ALIW AL, NABIL ADAM, and CHRISTOF BORNHOEVD Appeal2014-008974 Application 11/543,635 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal2014-008974 Application 11/543,635 INVENTION The invention is directed to using an ontology to enhance a set of keywords related to service requests. (Spec. iii! 15 and 18.) Claim 14 is illustrative and is reproduced below with the contested limitation emphasized: 14. A method comprising: using a hardware computer system to compute an enhanced request set of keywords comprising keywords of a request set of keywords of a service request and an enhancement keyword corresponding to a related ontological concept, the ontological concept being from an ontology of an ontology framework, further using the computer system to identify a correspondence between a keyword of the request set of keywords and a name of a concept from the ontology, the identified correspondence enabling identification of the enhancement keyword from the corresponding name of the concept; identifYing a service to match the service request based on service functionality by computing a similarity between the enhanced request set of lrey'1lvords and a functionality' corresponding to each of a plurality of available services, the computed similarity being based in part on at least one keyword of the request set of keywords of the enhanced request set of keywords as related to service descriptions and service description tags for each of the plurality of available services; and ranking the identified service with respect to quality of service parameters of the identified service. Grefenstette Altenhofen Hite REFERENCES US 2003/0061201 Al US 2006/0161655 Al US 2007/0094256 Al 2 Mar. 27, 2003 July 20, 2006 Apr. 26, 2007 Appeal2014-008974 Application 11/543,635 l. Budak Arpinar, et al., Ontology-Driven Web Services Composition Platform, (2004) (herein "Arpinar"). REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-28 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Altenhofen, Arpinar, and Hite. 2 (Final Act. 6-21.) Claims 7 and 203 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Altenhofen, Arpinar, and Grefenstette. (Final Act. 21-23.) ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Altenhofen and Arpinar teaches or suggests "match[ing] the service request based on service functionality by computing a similarity between the enhanced request set of keywords and a functionality" as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 14, 27, and 28? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Altenhofen and Arpinar teaches or suggests "to compute the similarity by identifying a 1 The claims listed in the Examiner's rejection statement (see Final Act. 6), do not correspond to those claims rejected in the body of the rejection. (See Final Act. 6-21.) The claims listed here are those found in the body of the rejection rather than those of the Examiner's rejection statement. 2 Although Hite is listed in the Examiner's statement of rejection (see Final Act. 6), Hite is never cited anywhere in the body of the Examiner's rejection. (See Final Act. 6-21.) 3 The claim labeled as claim 19 on page 22 of the Examiner's Final Action is actually claim 20. This typographic error in claim numbering is considered harmless error. 3 Appeal2014-008974 Application 11/543,635 reduced representation of the enhanced request set of keywords, by identifying a further reduced representation of the plurality of available services" as recited in claim 5 and similarly recited by claim 18? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Altenhofen and Arpinar teaches or suggests "a mapping between the concepts representing the one or more keywords of the request set of keywords and concepts of the semantic service to compute a number of concepts related to the service request and the semantic service" as recited in claim 10 and similarly recited in claim 23? ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1, 14, 27, and 28 Claim 1 recites "to match the service request based on service functionality by computing a similarity between the enhanced request set of keywords and a functionality." Claims 14, 27, and 28 recite similar limitations. Appellants argue Arpinar does not disclose or suggest that the cited functionality is used as part of the searching and matching process. (App. Br. 18-20; Reply Br. 3-6.) The Examiner finds Arpinar page 4 teaches taking service functionality into consideration as a factor in conducting a search. (Ans. 4.) Specifically, Arpinar page 4 teaches "service selection and composition are not only determined by the constraints ... , functionality properties and the service output values to be returned at run-time need to be considered." (See id.) We agree with the Examiner that Arpinar page 4 teaches considering functionality properties. Appellants do not address the Examiner's factual findings regarding Arpinar page 4. (See Reply Br. 3-6.) 4 Appeal2014-008974 Application 11/543,635 Appellants argue that neither Altenhofen nor Arpinar discloses "service descriptions and service description tags" as claimed. (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 6-7.) Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41. 3 7 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."). Here, Appellants merely recite the claim limitation "service descriptions and service description tags" and do nothing more than conclusorily argue that the claim limitation is not found in the prior art. Thus, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1, 14, 27, and 28. Dependent Claims 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, and 20 Claim 5 recites "to compute the similarity by identifying a reduced representation of the enhanced request set of keywords, by identifying a further reduced representation of the plurality of available services." Claim 18 recites a similar limitation. Appellants argue Altenhofen and Arpinar fail to teach this limitation. (App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 9-10.) The Examiner finds Altenhofen paragraph 59 and Arpinar pages 13, 18, and 19 teach using hierarchical relationships and edge weight 5 Appeal2014-008974 Application 11/543,635 calculations to determine what services are relevant. (Final Act. 9.) The Examiner finds the results of the search are narrower than the originally considered set. (Id.) We note that Altenhofen paragraph 58 teaches "hierarchy level" and Altenhofen paragraph 59 cited by the Examiner does not. Presumably the Examiner intended to cite Altenhofen paragraph 58. However, even assuming the Examiner had cited to Altenhofen paragraph 58, the Examiner fails to identify which parts of the disclosure supposedly teach the various parts of the claim limitation. Presumably the Examiner is asserting the search results which are a narrower set correspond with the claimed reduced representation of available services. However, the Examiner fails to specify what prior art teaching corresponds to the reduced representation of keywords nor does the Examiner specify what prior art teaching corresponds to the claimed computed similarity between the two reduced representations. We thus conclude that the rejection of claim 5 lacks the requisite specificity needed for the establishment of a prima facie case of unpatentability. The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case ofunpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A prima facie case is established when the party with the burden of proof points to evidence that is sufficient, if uncontroverted, to entitle it to prevail as a matter of law. See Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. United States, 434 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, that burden has not been met in a manner enabling proper review. For us to sustain the Examiner's rejection, we would need to resort to impermissible speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales to cure the deficiencies in the factual bases of the rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). 6 Appeal2014-008974 Application 11/543,635 Accordingly, we agree that the Examiner erred as the analysis in the Examiner's rejection is not sufficient to show that claims 5 and 18 are unpatentable without further explanation. Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 depend from claims 5 and 18, respectively. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5-7 and 18-20. Dependent Claims 10 and 23 Appellants argue Arpinar does not teach "a mapping between the concepts representing the one or more keywords of the request set of keywords and concepts of the semantic service to compute a number of concepts related to the service request and the semantic service." (App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 10-11) (emphasis removed). The Examiner finds this limitation is taught by Altenhofen paragraph 24 and Arpinar pages 18-19. (See Final Act. 10 and 15.) Altenhofen paragraph 24 teaches "the given goal is analyzed with respect to words of the defined vocabulary used in describing that goal" and "for each word the overall index contains the network nodes where this word is known or used." This index is a mapping between the given goals (described by words) and the network nodes containing the services. Furthermore, Arpinar page 18 teaches "consider[ing] all inputs by semantically matching them with all WSs that take one or more of them as input." This matching might broadly be considered a mapping between the inputs and Web Services. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 10 and 23. 7 Appeal2014-008974 Application 11/543,635 Dependent Claims 2--4, 8, 9, 11-13, 15--17, 21, 22, and 24--26 Appellants have not argued any of dependent claims 2--4, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-17, 21, 22, and 24-26 with specificity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2--4, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-17, 21, 22, and 24-26. DECISION4 The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-4, 8-17, and 21-28 is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 5-7 and 18-20 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 4 In the event of further prosecution, we direct the Examiner's attention to the question of whether the claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on which updated examination guidance may be found. See 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74,618 (Dec. 16, 2014), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014- 29414.pdf; see also the July 2015 update and May 2016 found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy /2014- interim-guidance-subject-matter-eligibility-O. Abstract ideas have been identified by the courts by way of example, including fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea "of itself," and mathematical relationships/formulae. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355-56 (2014). We leave further consideration of this § 101 issue to the Examiner. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation