Ex Parte WhelanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201713973391 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/973,391 08/22/2013 John Desmond Whelan 11-0365-US-CNT 9472 63759 7590 04/03/2017 DTTKFW YFF EXAMINER YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. OWYANG, MICHELLE N P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2168 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2017 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): ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com patentadmin @ boeing. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN DESMOND WHELAN Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. Opinion for the Board filed by CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. Opinion Dissenting filed by GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—18, 25, and 26. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1—18, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Quadracci (US 2010/0205192 Al; published Aug. 12, 2010) and Sandler (US 8,214,361 Bl; issued July 3, 2012). Final Act. 9—22. We reverse. Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to “finding the presence of ambiguities in data stored within an associative memory for the purpose of reducing information obfuscation which can improve decision making.” Spec. 12. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A system comprising: a processor; an associative memory comprising a plurality of data and a plurality of associations among the plurality of data, wherein the plurality of data is collected into associated groups, and wherein the associative memory is configured to be queried based on at least one relationship, selected from a group that includes direct and indirect relationships, among the plurality of data in addition to direct correlations among the plurality of data; an input module configured to receive a value within a first perspective of the associative memory, wherein the first perspective comprises a first choice of context for a group of data within the plurality of data; a query module configured to perform an open query of the associative memory using the value, wherein the query module is further configured to perform the open query within at least one of an insert perspective and a second perspective of the associative memory, wherein the insert perspective comprises a type of perspective which is configured to be fed back into the associative memory, wherein the second perspective comprises a second choice of context for the group of data, and wherein the at least one of the insert perspective and the second perspective has as many or more category associations for the value relative to the first perspective; and a display module configured to display a result of the open query, wherein the display module is further configured to display a list of one or more potential ambiguities that result from the open query. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Quadracci and Sandler teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 10—13. The Examiner finds Quadracci teaches all 2 Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 limitations of claim 1, except for the recited (claim 1) “wherein the insert perspective comprises a type of perspective which is configured to be fed back into the associative memory, wherein the second perspective comprises a second choice of context for the group of data,” and “a display module configured to display a result of the open query, wherein the display module is further configured to display a list of one or more potential ambiguities that result from the open query[,]” for which the Examiner relies on Sandler. Final Act. 12. The Examiner reasons: [I]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify and combine the teachings of Quadracci and Sandler, by incorporat[ing] user-defined category and query result categorization of Sandler into [] Quadracci to perform query as claimed, and the motivation to combine is to provide results in an organized manner for the user (see Sandler, Col. 1, lines 25-30). Final Act. 12—13. Among other arguments presented in the appeal, Appellant presents the following principal argument with respect to Sandler: “[T]he cited combination of references, considered alone or together, does not disclose either the insert perspective or the second perspective.” App. Br. 11. “The claims clearly require that the insert perspective and the second perspective are for associative memories. Sandler has nothing to do with associative memories, and thus the Office Action attempt to shoehorn Sandler into reading on claim 1 is not reasonable.” App. Br. 14. Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding Sandler teaches the recited (claim 1) “wherein the insert perspective comprises a type of perspective which is configured to be fed back into the associative 3 Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 memory, wherein the second perspective comprises a second choice of context for the group of data[.]” Quadracci discloses an associative memory subsystem. See Quadracci, Abstract. With regard to the recited (claim 1) “wherein the insert perspective comprises a type of perspective which is configured to be fed back into the associative memory, wherein the second perspective comprises a second choice of context for the group of data,” the recited perspectives are perspectives of the associative memory which is configured to be queried based on at least one relationship, selected from a group that includes direct and indirect relationships, among the plurality of data in addition to direct correlations among the plurality of data. See Claim 1. In the Final Action, the Examiner cites to Sandler’s category builder for teaching an insert perspective (see Final Act. 12 (citing Sandler col. 5,11. 3—5; col. 6,11. 25—36; col. 7,11. 17—20; col. 9,11. 53—56)); however, the Examiner’s findings do not show that Sandler’s category builder has anything to do with perspectives of associative memories which are configured to be queried based on at least one relationship, selected from a group that includes direct and indirect relationships, among the plurality of data in addition to direct correlations among the plurality of data. To the extent Sandler’s category builder discloses an “insert perspective” in some sense of the word “perspective,” this disclosure is unrelated to a perspective in the sense claimed by Appellant: a perspective of an associative memory which is configured to be queried based on at least one relationship, selected from a group that includes direct and indirect relationships, among the plurality of data in addition to direct correlations among the plurality of data. 4 Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 Similarly, the Examiner cites to Sandler’s categories for teaching a second perspective (see Final Act. 12 (citing Sandler col. 5,11. 45—65; col. 9, 11. 60-67)); however, the Examiner’s findings do not show that Sandler’s categories have anything to do with associative memories which are configured to be queried based on at least one relationship, selected from a group that includes direct and indirect relationships, among the plurality of data in addition to direct correlations among the plurality of data. To the extent Sandler’s categories disclose a “second perspective” in some sense of the word “perspective,” this disclosure is also unrelated to a perspective in the sense claimed by Appellant: a perspective of an associative memory which is configured to be queried based on at least one relationship, selected from a group that includes direct and indirect relationships, among the plurality of data in addition to direct correlations among the plurality of data. In the Examiner’s Answer, regarding associative memory, the Examiner further explains: [T]he claimed “associative memory” as recited in claim 1 is properly interpreted as directed to “a plurality of data and plurality of associations among the plurality of data”, and is not necessar[il]y required to [be] interpreted] as the “content addressable memories”. Further, Sandler discloses a plurality of data (e.g. a data set of webpages and a set of hierarchical categories) and a plurality of associations among the data (e.g. hierarchical associations between categories and/or webpages) in a memory, and the plurality of data are configured to be queried with respect to relationships for generating potentially categorized results. Ans. 4. Regarding perspectives (point of view, or context), the Examiner further explains: “the plurality of categories of Sandler includes at least a 5 Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 first category and a second category each correspond to respective a ‘point of view’ or a ‘choice of context’ as claimed.” Ans. 5. Again, we do not agree with the Examiner; rather we agree with Appellant’s explanation that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language is unreasonable, and that the Examiner’s findings do not show that Sandler discloses perspectives of an associative memory which is configured to be queried based on at least one relationship, selected from a group that includes direct and indirect relationships, among the plurality of data in addition to direct correlations among the plurality of data.. See Reply Br. 4— 8. In particular, the Examiner’s interpretation of the meaning of an “associative memory” as being “directed to ‘a plurality of data and plurality of associations among the plurality of data’” (Ans. 4), rather than memory queried based on direct and indirect relationships (i.e., based on content) is based on an overly selective quotation of the Specification’s definition (see id. at 3 (citing Spec. 130)). The Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad in light of the Specification’s full definition of an “associative memory” detailed in the Specification’s paragraph 30, reproduced below: As used herein the term “associative memory” refers to a plurality of data and plurality of associations among the plurality of data. The data and associations may be stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The plurality of data may be collected into associated groups. The associative memory may be configured to be queried based on indirect relationships among plurality of data in addition to direct correlations among plurality of data. The associative memory may also be configured to be queried based on direct relationships, and combinations of direct and indirect relationships. Thus, the advantageous embodiments provide for an associative memory comprising a plurality of data and a 6 Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 plurality of associations among the plurality of data. The plurality of data is collected into associated groups. The associative memory is configured to be queried based on at least one relationship, selected from a group that includes direct and indirect relationships, among the plurality of data in addition to direct correlations among the plurality of data. Associative memory may also take the form of software. Thus, associative memory also may be considered a process by which information is collected into associated groups in the interest of gaining new insight based on relationships rather than direct correlation. Spec. 130 (emphasis added). As detailed in the Specification’s definition of an “associative memory,” the memory is configured to be queried based on at least one relationship, whether direct, indirect, or some combination of direct and indirect. This configuration is also found in the claim recitations themselves. See, e.g., claim 1 (“wherein the associative memory is configured to be queried based on at least one relationship”). Although the Examiner relies on Quadracci to teach or suggest an associative memory (see Final Act. 10 (citing Quadracci Tflf 31—32, Fig. 10)), the Examiner’s finding that Sandler teaches or suggests perspectives of an associative memory is based on an unreasonably broad interpretation of “associative memory,” as detailed above (see Final Act. 4, 11—12; Ans. 3—6). The Examiner does not present findings that show that Sandler teaches perspectives of an associative memory, given an interpretation of “associative memory” consistent with the claim recitations and the Specification (i.e., being configured to be queried based on a least one direct or indirect relationship). Therefore, the Examiner’s findings do not show that Sandler teaches or suggests the recited (claim 1) “wherein the insert perspective [of the associative memory] comprises a type of perspective 7 Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 which is configured to be fed back into the associative memory, wherein the second perspective [of the associative memory] comprises a second choice of context for the group of data” because the Examiner’s findings do not show that any “perspectives” in Sandler are applicable as perspectives of an associative memory. Furthermore, to the extent Sandler teaches “perspectives” in some sense of the word “perspective,” the Examiner’s reasoning (see Final Act. 12—13) lacks the required rational underpinning to support the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness. The Examiner finds “the motivation to combine is to provide results in an organized manner for the user.” Final Act 13. Although organizing results from a query may be something that a skilled artisan would have desired, this reasoning coupled with Sandler’s categories, does not explain why or how to modify Quadracci’s queries themselves in the manner claimed. See claim 1 (emphasis added) (“wherein the query module is further configured to perform the open query within at least one of an insert perspective and a second perspective of the associative memory.”). We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2—8, 25, and 26, which depend from claim 1. Claim 9 recites “wherein the insert perspective comprises a type of perspective which is configured to be fed back into the associative memory, wherein the second perspective comprises a second choice of context for the group of data.” We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9, or of claims 10—16, which depend from claim 9. Claim 17 recites “wherein the insert perspective comprises a type of perspective which is configured to be fed back into the associative memory, 8 Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 wherein the second perspective comprises a second choice of context for the group of data.” We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17, or of claim 18, which depends from claim 17. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—18, 25, and 26 is reversed. REVERSED 9 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN DESMOND WHELAN Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Appellant’s contentions are all based on the underlying premise that Sandler does not relate to associative memories. See, e.g., App. Br. 14 (“The claims clearly require that the insert perspective and the second perspective are for associative memories. Sandler has nothing to do with associative memories, and thus the Office Action attempt to shoehorn Sandler into reading on claim 1 is not reasonable.”). According to Appellant, “[associative memories are content addressable memories that operate in a manner completely different than traditional memories.” App. Br. 6. Appellant argues that “[t]he claim also requires at least indirect relationships among data in the associative memory, and thus Applicant is clearly referring to content addressable memories.” App. Br. 24. Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 At the outset, it is worth noting Appellant is incorrect that claim 1 requires “indirect relationships.” Claim 1 recites that “the associative memory is configured to be queried based on at least one relationship, selected from a group that includes direct and indirect relationships.” Thus, claim 1 is satisfied by an associative memory that is configured to be queried based only on direct relationships. Indeed, “direct and indirect relationships” encompass all possible relationships because any relationship that is not “direct” is by definition “indirect.” Therefore, the recitation “selected from a group that includes direct and indirect relationships” does not limit the claim. I disagree with the majority that the Examiner applies an unreasonably broad definition of “associative memory.” The majority states: [T]he Examiner’s interpretation of the meaning of an “associative memory” as being “directed to ‘a plurality of data and plurality of associations among the plurality of data’” (Ans. 4), rather than memory queried based on direct and indirect relationships (i.e., based on content) is based on an overly selective quotation of the Specification’s definition (see id. at 3 (citing Spec. 130)). Maj. Op. 6. The majority further states: “As detailed in the Specification’s definition of an ‘associative memory,’ the memory is configured to be queried based on at least one relationship, whether direct, indirect, or some combination of direct and indirect.” Id. at 7. According to the majority, “the Examiner’s finding that Sandler teaches or suggests perspectives of an associative memory is based on an unreasonably broad interpretation of ‘associative memory.’” Id. 2 Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 On the contrary, the Examiner makes express findings that Sandler in fact teaches an associative memory that is configured to be queried based on at least one relationship. In particular, the Examiner states: [T]he claimed “associative memory” as recited in claim 1 is properly interpreted as directed to “a plurality of data and plurality of associations among the plurality of data”, and is not necessar[il]y required to [be] interpreted] as the “content addressable memories”. Further, Sandler discloses a plurality of data (e.g. a data set of webpages and a set of hierarchical categories) and a plurality of associations among the data (e.g. hierarchical associations between categories and/or webpages) in a memory, and the plurality of data are configured to be queried with respect to relationships for generating potentially categorized results. E.g. a memory includes search results for the search term “tiger” that are related to associated categories such as tigers (animal) and Tiger Woods (golfer) for generating potentially categorized results. As exemplarily shown in Col. 4, lines 63-67, Col. 5, lines 1-25, Col. 7, lines 1-35, Col. 9, lines 60-67. Ans. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Sandler teaches an associative memory because it discloses “a plurality of data and plurality of associations among the plurality of data,” which the majority concludes is an “unreasonably broad interpretation of ‘associative memory.’” However, the majority appears to ignore the Examiner’s findings, set out in the next paragraph, that Sandler also teaches an associative memory that is configured to be queried based on at least one relationship. Therefore, the Examiner makes express findings that address the very construction adopted by the majority.1 In Reply, 11 also do not agree with the majority that paragraph 30 of Appellant’s Specification sets forth the “full definition of an ‘associative memory.’” See Maj. Op. 6—7. Paragraph 30 sets forth various ways in which an associative 3 Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 Appellant does not specifically rebut the Examiner’s mapping of Sandler to the “associative memory” of the claim; rather, Appellant broadly asserts that Sandler does not relate to associative memories. See Reply Br. 4—5. Ido not find this persuasive in light of the Examiner’s findings to the contrary. I further disagree with the majority that the Examiner’s reasoning lacks the requisite rationale underpinning. As an initial matter, Appellant does not specifically argue this. Rather, Appellant’s arguments against the combination are that Sandler is non-analogous art and that Sandler would change the principle of operation of Quadracci. App. Br. 18—21. Appellant’s non-analogous art argument is based on the premise that Sandler is not directed to associative memories. App. Br. 18—21. In particular, Appellant argues “Sandler cannot be in the same field of invention and cannot be reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Applicant because Sandler has nothing to do with associative memories, and its techniques would not be referenced by those of ordinary skill.” App. Br. 21. A prior art reference is analogous to an application (1) if it is from the same field of endeavor as the application, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, it is nonetheless reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. memory may be configured, including the manner in which it is configured in the claims. Paragraph 30 even states that “[associative memory may also take the form of software” and “may be considered a process.” Spec. 1 30. At least in the context of system claim 1, paragraph 30’s “definition” of an associative memory as a process is inapplicable. Therefore, I do not interpret paragraph 30 as providing a limiting definition of “associative memory.” 4 Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 Cir. 2004). Appellant’s argument is essentially that Sandler does not qualify under the second prong, i.e., is not “reasonably pertinent,” because it does not qualify under the first prong, i.e., is not in the same field of endeavor. However, the second prong is a way to show analogousness when the reference does not satisfy the first prong. In any event, for the reasons explained above, I believe the Examiner has shown that Sandler is directed to associative memories that are configured to be queried based on at least one relationship and, therefore, that Sandler is in the same field of endeavor. Appellant further argues that the asserted combination changes the principle of operation of Quadracci because it “attempts to use techniques that apply to ordinary memories (Sandler) to associative memories (Quadracci).” App. Br. 21. This argument is another embodiment of the recurring theme that Sandler allegedly does not relate to associative memories. I do not find this persuasive. With respect to the Examiner’s rationale for combining the references, the majority states: “Although organizing results from a query may be something that a skilled artisan would have desired, this reasoning coupled with Sandler’s categories, does not explain why or how to modify Quadracci’s queries themselves in the manner claimed.” Maj. Op. 8. As for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this, the Examiner states the reason is “to provide results in an organized manner for the user.” Final Act. 13 (citing Sandler, col. 1,11. 25—30); see also Ans. 10 (citing Sandler, col. 1,11. 35—46, col. 3,11. 46-49). This is a goal shared by Quadracci. See Quadracci 139 (“This operation may be viewed as a ‘knowledge/discovery’ operation in which the query software 21a of the entity analytics engine 21 accesses the associative memory 20 to find and 5 Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 extract all of the pertinent, saved non-conformance information available in the associative memory 20 that pertains to the entity types and entities that it has selected. The obtained information is then presented in a logically organized format by the entity analytics engine 21 to the computer terminal 22, as indicated by diagram 212.”); see also Sandler, col. 3,11. 47—50 (“The set of search results can be organized into an organized set of categories, or hierarchy, related to the search results, providing a high-level summary of the set of search results to the user.”). Thus, I see no error in the Examiner’s stated motivation. As for how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this, Quadracci itself discloses how queries are created. For example, Quadracci discloses: The entity analytics engine 21 receives non-conformance queries from a user 24 via the computer display device 22 and the query software 21a and controls the generation of the pertinent entity types and entities for a given input query by the user. The entity analytics engine 21 converts the words in the non-conformance input query into attributes and retrieves all of the specific entities (relating to various different entity types) that have information that meets one or more of the attributes relating to the non-conformance input query. Quadracci 129 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Quadracci’s “entity type” teaches a “perspective” (Final Act. 11), and I agree because Quadracci discloses that “[e]ntity types can thus be thought of as different categories or types of information (or even different ways or perspectives to remember the information) that may be useful in the non-conformance analysis process.” Quadracci 131 (emphasis added). Thus, I do not agree that reversal is appropriate merely because the Examiner did not expressly lay out how to perform a query within a perspective in view of Quadracci’s 6 Appeal 2015-008034 Application 13/973,391 disclosure that it was known how to do just that. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Therefore, I would affirm the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claims 1—18, 25, and 26 would have been obvious based on the combination of Quadracci and Sandler. 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation