Ex Parte RiedingerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201310389701 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte MARKUS RIEDINGER ____________________ Appeal 2010-007441 Application 10/389,701 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007441 Application 10/389,701 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-40. See Ans. 2. 2 Claim 3 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Introduction The claims are directed to system and techniques to find or locate resources in an organization using ontology for a plurality of information sources. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed material and indenting added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: receiving query parameters from a user query that is input by a user via a portal, the user query pertaining to targeted information contained within a plurality of information sources, each information source of the plurality of information sources comprising a plurality of data objects whose contents and/or location can vary dynamically, the plurality of information sources comprising [1] a first information source of a first organization and a second information source of a second organization that are shared between the first organization and the second organization and a third information source of the second organization and a fourth information source of a third organization that are shared between the second organization and the third organization, the first information source and the fourth information source not being directly shared between the first and the third organizations, the user being a member of the first organization and therefore not having direct access to the fourth information source of the third organization; 1 The real party in interest is SAP AG. 2 Throughout the Decision, we refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Dec. 10, 2009), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 16, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 16, 2010). Appeal 2010-007441 Application 10/389,701 3 creating a problem set that comprises a subset of the plurality of information sources, the subset comprising the first, second, third, and fourth information sources, the query parameters designating the subset of the plurality of information sources that are included in the problem set; building, dynamically in a search engine according to the query parameters, an ontology of the query, the building comprising arranging metadata of the subset of the plurality of sources that comprise the problem set into a relational network; conducting a search of the problem set using the relational network to identify the targeted information, the conducting of the search comprising sharing the first and the fourth information sources via the second and the third information sources of the second organization and thereby providing access to the fourth information source to the user; and providing the targeted information to the portal if the targeted information is identified. Rejections The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 28, 30, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilbanks (US 2003/0018616 A1, Jan. 23, 2003), Raboczi (US 2003/0074352 A1, Apr. 17, 2003) and Robertson (US 6,269,369 B1, Jul. 31, 2001). Ans. 4-8. Claims 5-7, 9-13, 15-17, 21, 23-27, 31, 32, 34, and 36-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilbanks, Dane (US 6,785,679 B1, Aug. 31, 2004), Raboczi and Robertson. Ans. 8-17. Claims 2, 4, 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilbanks, Raboczi, Robertson and Hassman(US 2003/0126141 A1, Jul. 3, 2003). Ans. 17-18. Appeal 2010-007441 Application 10/389,701 4 Claims 8, 14, 19, 22, 33, 35, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilbanks, Dane, Raboczi, Robertson and Hassman. Ans. 19-21. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilbanks, Dane, Raboczi, Robertson and Dietz (US 2002/0152316 A1, Oct. 17, 2002). Ans. 21. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilbanks, Dane, Raboczi, Robertson, Hassman and Dietz. Ans. 22. ANALYSIS Independent Claim 1 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Robertson teaches or suggests the organizations (first, second and third) and information sources (first, second, third and fourth) and their associations and sharing of information as recited claim 1, noted above in element [1]? Appellant contends that Robertson does not teach or suggest the first, second and third organizations as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 25. Appellant also contends that Robertson does not teach or suggest a first, second, third, and fourth information sources as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 27. Having reviewed Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred (App. Br. 21-30 and Reply 2-6), we agree with the Examiner. See Ans. 22- 27. Robertson discloses members A, B and a contact of member B that are equivalent to the organizations cited in [1] of claim 1. Ans. 24. Indeed, Appellant’s specification defines organization in a manner that includes entities and that such an entity can be a person. See Spec. ¶[0025]. We also agree with the Examiner that each member in Robertson has personal Appeal 2010-007441 Application 10/389,701 5 information and work information that is equivalent to the “information sources” of claim 1. Ans. 24. The Examiner’s mapping properly summarizes the teachings of Robertson in relation to Appellant’s claimed invention. Id. Giving the claim terms their broadest reasonable interpretation, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), we find that Appellant’s claimed “information sources” and “organization” includes the members (and their member contacts) and various information groupings that’s taught by Robertson. We disagree with Appellant’s argument that Robertson is completely silent on claim limitation of sharing the first and fourth information sources via the second and third information sources of the second organization to provide access to the fourth information source to the user and fails to show that a member of the first organization does not have direct access to the third organization. App. Br. 28. Robertson teaches that member A has access to the contact of member B (the third organization). See Robertson, col. 9, ll. 15-26, 40-46. Contrary to Appellant’s argument that the Examiner merely “characterize the suggestive value of the prior art” (Reply Br. 3), we agree with the Examiner that Robertson expressly teaches member A having access to the information of associated with a contact of member B. Ans. 26; see Robertson col. 9, ll. 15-26, 40-46. Appellant’s contention that social networking based information sharing that is granted in Robertson is not equivalent or suggestive of the operation disclosed in Appellant’s claim, Reply Br. 3, 4, is not commensurate in scope with Appellant’s claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Appellant has not indicated, and we cannot find a limitation of claim 1 that requires a particular method of information sharing. We also note that Robertson need not “be [] construed as teaching Appeal 2010-007441 Application 10/389,701 6 the claimed aspects relating to searching of a relational network” because the Examiner did not rely on Robertson for that teaching. Reply Br. 3. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Finally, we are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s mapping, Ans. 24, “are indicative of an attempt to assemble piecemeal elements culled from disparate references to create” a prima facie case of obviousness. Reply Br. 5. In determining the differences between the prior art and the claim at issue, the question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In this case, we find that the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness and provided a rationale underpinning for the combination of references, based on the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Ans. 6-7 (providing rationale for combining Robertson with cited references); 24 (mapping Robertson to claims). Based on the foregoing the Examiner did not err in finding that Robertson teaches or suggests the organizations (first, second and third) and information sources (first, second, third and fourth) and their associations and sharing of information as recited claim 1. Appellant argues claims 1 and 28 together. See App. Br. 29. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s Appeal 2010-007441 Application 10/389,701 7 rejection of claims 1 and 28 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilbanks, Raboczi and Robertson. Independent Claims 5, 11, 21 24 and 32 & Dependent Claims2, 4-10, 12-20, 22, 23, 25-27, 29-31, and 33-40 Appellant does not make separate arguments for the patentability of independent claims 5, 11, 21, 24 and 32, and relies on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 28. App. Br. 29-30. Thus, we also sustain the Examiner’s reject of independent claims 5, 11, 21, 24 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants does not make a separate argument for dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12-20, 22, 23, 25-27, 29-31, and 33-40, which stand or fall with their respective independent claims. See Reply Br. 6. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12-20, 22, 23, 25-27, 29- 31, and 33-40 is also sustained. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4 -40 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4 -40 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2010-007441 Application 10/389,701 8 AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation