Ex Parte Whelan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

13973391 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

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