Aabhasv.Paliwal et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2020

11543635 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2020)

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.
11/543,635 10/04/2006 Aabhas V. Paliwal 2058.139US1 7499
50400 7590 02/25/2020
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
MUELLER, KURT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2020 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte AABHAS V. PALIWAL, NABIL ADAM, and
CHRISTOF BORNHOEVD
____________________

Appeal 2018-008892
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

Appeal 2018-008892
Application 11/543,635

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1–4, 6–17, and 19–27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A system comprising:
a processor,
a memory accessible to the processor for storing a service
request;
an interface to receive the service request including a request
set of keywords;
an enhancement unit to compute an enhanced request set of
keywords comprising keywords of the request set of
keywords of the service request and an enhancement
keyword, the enhancement keyword being represented by
an ontology concept, a keyword of the request set of
keywords being represented by a further ontology
concept, the ontology concept being related to the further
ontology concept, the ontology concept being from an
ontology of an ontology framework, the enhancement
unit 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 the
enhancement unit to identify the enhancement keyword
from the corresponding name of the concept;
a matching unit to identify a service to match the service

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAP SE.
Appeal Br. 3.

Appeal 2018-008892
Application 11/543,635

3
request based on service functionality by computing a
similarity between the enhanced request set of keywords
and a functionality corresponding to each of a plurality of
available services as defined by a service set of keywords
of the service, the computed similarity being based in
part on at least one keyword of the requester 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, the
computed similarity computed by computing a reduced
representation of the enhanced request set of keywords
by projecting a vector representing the enhanced request
set of keywords onto a subspace, by computing a further
reduced representation of the plurality of available
services by projecting a vector representing the service
set of keywords onto a subspace, and by identifying the
similarity with a value to which the reduced
representation and the further reduced representation are
mapped; and
a ranking unit to rank the identified service with respect to
quality of service parameters of the identified service.
Appeal Br. 37–38 (Claims App.).

Rejections
1. Claims 1–4, 6, 8–17, and 21–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as rendered obvious by Altenhofen et al. (US 2006/0161655 A1,
published July 20, 2006 (hereinafter “Altenhofen”)), in further view of
Budak Arpinar et al., “Ontology-Driven Web Services Composition
Platform” (“NPL Ontology”) (2004). 1

1 The Examiner refers to the Arpinar reference as the NPL Ontology
reference. (Ans. 4). In our decision, we will refer to this reference as either
Arpinar or NPL Ontology.
Appeal 2018-008892
Application 11/543,635

4
2. Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered
obvious by Altenhofen, in further view of NPL Ontology, in further view of
Grefenstette et al. (US 2003/0061201 A1; published Mar. 27, 2003
(hereinafter “Grefenstette”)).
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1 because:
Altenhofen discusses analyzing “the semantic web service
instance description ‘DB’ with respect to words of a defined
vocabulary derived from ontologies” and a finding of words
based on the analysis. A publishing component “compares
those words with an overall index in which all words of the
defined vocabulary are deposited together with network nodes
to which they are assigned.” More importantly, Altenhofen, for
example, augments a vocabulary with new words. Altenhofen
does not disclose or suggest “computing a reduced
representation of the enhanced request set of keywords by
projecting a vector representing the enhanced request set of
keywords onto a subspace” and “by computing a further
reduced representation of the plurality of available services by
projecting a vector representing the service set of keywords
onto a subspace.”
Regarding the claimed projection of a vector, it is noted
that projecting a vector includes, for example, mapping a vector
from a vector space onto a subspace, as would be apparent to a
person of ordinary skill in the art. Altenhofen does not disclose
or suggest vectors and does not disclose or suggest the
projection of a vector.
Appeal Br. 20 (emphasis and footnotes omitted).

Arpinar discusses “four cases to check similarity (i.e.,
matching) of an output and input parameter from the same
ontology” and that a “first step is to consider all inputs by
semantically matching them with all WSs [Web Services] that
take one or more of them as input.” Thus, Arpinar teaches away
Appeal 2018-008892
Application 11/543,635

5
from the claimed embodiment by teaching to consider all inputs
by semantically matching them with all WSs. While Arpinar
suggests that a “user is given the option to discard elements in
this new set of input parameters [generated by the system] that
may no longer be needed”, that the “user may also
mark some of the new input as ‘optional’”, and that “[t]his
helps in the ranking of the list of WSs that will be shown to the
user in subsequent stages”, Arpinar does not disclose or suggest
using the cited new set of input parameters generated by the
system to identify a “similarity with a value to which the
reduced representation and the further reduced representation
are mapped.”
Appeal Br. 20–21 (emphasis and footnotes omitted); see also Reply Br. 3–4.

2. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
2 and 15 because:
Arpinar discusses “semantics of a domain such as the terms and
concepts of interest, their meanings, relationships between them
and the characteristics of the domain through an ontology.” It
is unclear which elements “them” refers to in the phrase
“relationships between them” in Arpinar. Semantics of a
domain such as the terms and concepts of interest, their
meanings, and relationships between them is not equivalent to a
relation between concepts of two ontologies and is not
equivalent to a relation between a first concept of a first
ontology and a second concept of a second ontology.
Moreover, a relationship between ontologies, as alleged by the
Examiner, is not equivalent to a relationship between different
concepts of different ontologies. Arpinar does not disclose or
suggest “wherein the ontological concept being linked to a
second ontology by a relation between a first concept of a first
ontology and a second concept of a second ontology.”
Appeal Br. 22 (emphasis and footnotes omitted); see also Reply Br. 4–5.
.

3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
6 and 19 because:
Appeal 2018-008892
Application 11/543,635

6
Altenhofen discusses analyzing “the semantic web service
instance description ‘DB’ with respect to words of a defined
vocabulary derived from ontologies” and comparing “those
words with an overall index in which all words of the defined
vocabulary are deposited together with network nodes to which
they are assigned.” Comparing words of a defined vocabulary
with an index is a comparison operation and does not infer the
existence of either “correlations between keywords of
documents related to the plurality of available services and the
documents related to the plurality of available services,” or
representations of such correlations.
Appeal Br. 25 (emphasis and footnotes omitted); see also Reply Br. 5).

ANALYSIS,
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3–7). However,
we highlight and address specific findings for emphasis as follows.
As to above contention 1, we disagree with Appellant’s arguments.
First, we agree with the Examiner that “vector,” as recited in claim 1,
means “a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, especially as
determining the position of one point in space relative to another.” Ans. 4.
Second, the Examiner finds that in NPL Ontology:
Computing a reduced representation can be readily
accomplished by adding more terms to the search, as adding
further terms narrows the results that can match. In other words,
the initial set of keywords would match a corresponding
representation reflecting the results, and computing a reduced
Appeal 2018-008892
Application 11/543,635

7
representation would be readily accomplished by adding more
terms, which restrict the result set.
For example, in NPL Ontology on page 10, the art
contemplates the example of “wine” being a subclass of
“alcohol”, which is itself a subclass of “drink”. It is therefore
clear that considering all three of these elements produces a
reduced representation, as the number of results that will match
all three is necessarily narrower then the results that would
match just “drink” in isolation. Similarly, this shows a
“vector”, as this shows both a direction (that is, narrower), and
a magnitude (different level reflecting different degrees of
separation). Page 15 of NPL [Ontology] is even clearer about
the vector, where the “composition result” is determined at
least in part base on “the quality rate of the service” and “the
distance form start service to this service”, the quality and
distance being the two elements of a vector.
Ans. 5–6 (emphasis in original omitted, our emphasis added).

In other words, NPL Ontology’s “composition result” teaches the
claimed “vector” limitation. Ans. 6. (citing NPL Ontology 15).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings because Appellant has not
cited to an explicit definition of “vector” in the Specification. Appellant has
not presented any persuasive evidence to convince us that the Examiner’s
interpretation of “vector” is in error.
Thus, the Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, has properly found that NPL
Ontology discloses the disputed vector limitation, as explained above.
As to above contention 2, NPL Ontology teaches the first/second
ontologies limitation. The Examiner finds, and we agree:
It is unclear why “a relationship between ontologies” is
distinct from “a relationship between different concepts of
different ontologies”. All ontologies by definition define a set
of concepts. If two ontologies are distinct, as taught by NPL
Appeal 2018-008892
Application 11/543,635

8
Ontology, it necessarily follows that [they] are “different
ontologies” and therefore are “different concepts”. Like a
mathematical set, even a single element of difference is
sufficient for the sets to be distinct and related to different
conceptual frameworks.
Ans. 6.
As to above contention 3, about the correlations limitation, Appellant
defines “[a] correlation between two things is a relationship between two
things.” Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds the correlations limitation is taught by NPL
Ontology as explained below. In particular, the Examiner cites to:
NPL Ontology p. 13 & 18-19; disclosing using hierarchical
relationships and edge eight calculations to determine what services
are relevant to the user provided search, and disclosing using various
possible weight calculations to obtain different results, the results
being both narrower than the originally considered set and identified
using a similarity value.
Final Act. 8 (emphasis added) (citing NPL Ontology 13, 18, and 19).
We agree with the Examiner because the claimed correlations, i.e.,
relationships, encompass NPL Ontology’s similarity value.
Regarding Appellant’s additional arguments for patentability of
claims 7, 8, 10–13, 16, 20, 21, and 23–26 (Appeal Br. 26–35), we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning (Final Act. 8–18), which are
incorporated herein by reference.
Consequently, Appellant has failed to show error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–4, 6–17, and 19–27.

Appeal 2018-008892
Application 11/543,635

9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting 1–4, 6–17, and 19–27 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 6–17, and 19–27 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6,
8–17,
21–27
103 Altenhofen, NPL
Ontology
1–4, 6,
8–17,
21–27

7, 20 103 Altenhofen, NPL
Ontology,
Grefenstette
7, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–
17, 19–
27