Ex Parte Rouhiainen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

12205569 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/205,569 09/05/2008
30903 7590 07/29/2016
CRAIN, CATON & JAMES
FIVE HOUSTON CENTER
1401 MCKINNEY, 17TH FLOOR
HOUSTON, TX 77010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hannu Rouhiainen
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.
33849-231 7125
EXAMINER
HUTTON, NAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2016 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):
wjensen@craincaton.com
jhudson@craincaton.com
ipdocket@craincaton.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANNU ROUHIAINEN, BERND RUEHLICKE,
and ODDV AR GJERDE
Appeal2015-000181
Application 12/205,569
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000181
Application 12/205,569
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "[ s ]ystems and methods for accessing
functional interface properties for data objects through a value map."
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method for accessing interface properties of a data object,
compnsmg:
getting the data object from a first data field outside a value
map in a second data field, wherein the data object includes data
values and related data; and
getting an interface property for the data object from the value
map in the second data field using a computer processor.
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTION2
Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Murphy et al. (WO 99/28767;
published June 10, 1999). (See Final Act. 3---6.)
1 Appellants identify "Landmark Graphics Corporation ... a subsidiary of
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc." as the real party in interest. (See App.
Br. 3.)
2 The Examiner also objected to the August 23, 2013 Amendment as
introducing new matter. (See Final Act. 2.) We do not address this
objection, as it is not appealable. See MPEP 2163.06(II) ("A rejection of
2
Appeal2015-000181
Application 12/205,569
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that the rejections are improper for the following
reasons:
1. With respect to all claims, Murphy fails to disclose "a value
map with an interface property for a data object." (See App. Br. 7-8.)
2. With respect to claims 4, 12, and 20, Murphy fails to disclose
"getting an attribute property for the data object from the value map" or that
"the value map includes an attribute property for the data object." (See App.
Br. 8-9.)
ANALYSIS
Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 1 7 requires (a) getting a data
object (including data values and related data) from a first data field outside
a value map in a second data field, and (b) getting an interface property for
the data object from the value map in the second data field. The
Specification states that "[a]n interface property ... is anything that can
access data in a predetermined way." (Spec. i-f 36.)
Murphy describes a system that "assist[ s] geologists (or others) in
constructing, modifying, and testing geologically-consistent model( s) of the
subsurface." (Murphy 1:19-21.) The system includes a "gallery" that
"provides an interface to a database of geological and geographical archive
data." (Id. 10:26-27.) "Two basic tasks occur in the gallery," the first being
"model selection" and the second being "selection of objects for placement
claims is reviewable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, whereas an
objection and requirement to delete new matter is subject to supervisory
review by petition under 37 CPR 1.181.").
3
Appeal2015-000181
Application 12/205,569
into the subsurface 3-D world." (Id. 11 :3--4.) "The user typically will enter
gallery 500 with some piece of data and browse the archive gallery 510
looking for examples of bodies fitted to data which, when properly fitted,
most closely match the incoming data; or, the user may enter with no data
and wish to view all objects, generic or fitted, and pick one." (Id. 11 :4--8.)
"Once a template is selected 540, the user may proceed to the workshop
600," which "allows the user to interact with varying data types in 3-D, and
at the correct scale." (Id. 11:11-14.) The workshop includes tools allowing
the user to "attempt to fit an archive template 610 to the project data." (Id.
11:26-27.)
The Examiner equates Murphy's geographical database with the
claimed "first data field" and Murphy's workshop with the claimed "value
map." (See Ans. 3.) The Examiner maps the claimed "data object" to the
geographical structure selected in Murphy's gallery, the "data values" to
Murphy's archive data, the "related data" to "some piece of data the user
already had about the object," and the "interface property" to "the varying
geometrical data types in Murphy." (See Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 3.)
Appellants argue "there is nothing in Murphy that describes
geometrical data sets and varying data types as an interface property for the
claimed data object" and "[a]lthough the model building workshops provide
for the selection of data types, the data types are not interface properties-
much less associated with the data object." (App. Br. 8.)
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications by giving
the claims "their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification" and "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
4
Appeal2015-000181
Application 12/205,569
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, we conclude that the term "interface
property," as it would be understood by a skilled artisan in view the
Appellants' disclosure, is not met by the "varying data types" mentioned in
Murphy, which are simply the different kinds of geological and geographical
data that one can interact with in the workshop (see Murphy 10:26-11:2),
not mechanisms for "access[ing] data in a predetermined way (see Spec. i-f
36). The Examiner's finding that "[t]he varying data types are geometrical
data types, such as 3D and scale" (Ans. 4) is not correct, as the reference in
fact states that the workshop "allows the user to interact with varying data
types in 3-D, and at the correct scale" (Murphy 11: 13-14, emphasis added).
Because we conclude the Examiner has not shown that Murphy
describes "getting an interface property for the data object from the value
map in the second data field," we decline to sustain the rejections of claims
1, 2, 4--7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20. 3 We do not reach Appellants' second
argument.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20 are
reversed.
REVERSED
3 Our decision turns solely on our determination that Murphy's "varying data
types" are not, themselves, "interface properties," as the Examiner found.
We do not consider, because the question is not before us, whether
Murphy's "workshop" would include "interface properties" in order for the
user to access the varying data types.
5