Ex Parte Baek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

13419630 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/419,630 03/14/2012 OckKee Baek
30449 7590 04/01/2016
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
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.
CA920080055US2 6891
EXAMINER
BLACK, LINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
30449@IPLA WUSA.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OCK KEE BAEK, ARTI ABRA Y KALE, TAO LIU,
and PRADEEP MADAIAH
Appeal2014-005594
Application 13/419,630
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-20. (App. Br. 1.) 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Mar. 14, 2012
(claiming benefit of US 12/332,573, filed Dec. 11, 2008); Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") filed Sept. 16, 2013; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Mar.
25, 2014. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Jan. 31,
2014, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Apr.
18,2013.
Appeal2014-005594
Application 13/419,630
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns systems, computer program
products, processes, and methods for managing semantic and syntactic
metadata. The method captures semantic metadata (which describes
contextually relevant or domain specific information about received data,
based on an industry-specific or an enterprise-specific metadata model) and
syntactic metadata which includes grammatical rules and structural patterns
governing use and arrangement of received data. The method then logically
links the received data with the captured semantic metadata and syntactic
metadata. (Spec. 1:7-10; 2:11-20; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for managing semantic and syntactic
metadata, said method comprising:
a processor of a computer system receiving
heterogeneous data;
after said receiving, said processor capturing semantic
metadata associated with said received heterogeneous data, said
semantic metadata describing contextually relevant or domain
specific information about data based on an industry-specific
or enterprise-specific metadata model or ontology;
after said receiving, said processor capturing syntactic
metadata associated with said received heterogeneous data, said
syntactic metadata including grammatical rules and structural
patterns governing an ordered use of formats and arrangement
pertaining to specified data;
2
Appeal2014-005594
Application 13/419,630
said processor logically linking said received
heterogeneous data and said captured semantic metadata and
said syntactic metadata; and
said processor storing said heterogeneous data in a
repository.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 8, 12, 16, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morgenstern (US 5,970,490;
Oct. 19, 1999) and Lennon et al. (US 7,574,652 B2; Aug. 11, 2009 (filed
June 20, 2003)).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2-5, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morgenstern, Lennon,
and Bodain (US 2010/0185700 Al; July 22, 2010 (filed Sept.17, 2008)).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Morgenstern, Lennon, Bodain, and Rausch (US
20071017 4308 Al; July 26, 2007).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants'
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that Morgenstern and Lennon
would have collectively taught or suggested "semantic metadata describing
contextually relevant or domain specific information about data based on an
industry-specific or enterprise-specific metadata model or ontology" and
"logically linking said received heterogeneous data and said captured
3
Appeal2014-005594
Application 13/419,630
semantic metadata and said syntactic metadata" (hereinafter "disputed
limitations") within the meaning of Appellants' claim 1 and the
commensurate limitations of claims 8, 12, and 16?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner provides the same basis for rejecting each of the
independent claims (claims 1, 8, 12, and 16) (Final Act. 2-7; Ans. 3-5), and
rejects representative claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in
view of Morgenstern and Lennon. (Final Act. 2-7.) Appellants contend that
Morgenstern and Lennon do not teach the disputed features of representative
claim 1. (App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 2-7.) Specifically, Appellants contend,
inter alia, that
Morgenstern is totally silent as to semantic metadata
describing contextually relevant or domain-specific information
about data based on an industry-specific or enterprise-specific
metadata model or ontology. Morgenstern, col. 39, lines 40-49
,..1 • • ,..1 ·~ • ·~ uoes not mention an inuustry-spectLlC or enterpr1se-spectLlC
metadata model or ontology in any context. Furthermore, it is
not inherent for semantic metadata to describe contextually
relevant or domain-specific information about data based on an
industry-specific or enterprise-specific metadata model or
ontology, because semantic metadata is not limited or otherwise
required to describe contextually relevant or domain-specific
information about data based on an industry-specific or
enterprise-specific metadata model or ontology.
(App. Br. 9-10.)
We agree with Appellants that Morgenstern does not teach the recited
"semantic metadata" in that Morgenstern does not describe "contextually
relevant or domain-specific information" (metadata) about specific data
"based on an industry-specific or enterprise-specific metadata model or
4
Appeal2014-005594
Application 13/419,630
ontology" (claim 1 ). We agree with the Examiner that Morgenstern
discloses semantic metadata and a logical model for the metadata repository
(see Ans. 3-5; Final Act. 2-7 (citing Morgenstern claim 2 (col. 47, 11. 33-
36); col. 33, 11. 19-29; col. 37, 1. 45---col. 38, 1. 64; col. 39, 11. 40-49)),
There is, however, no explicit teaching in Morgenstern that the logical
model for the metadata repository (col. 39, 11. 40-49), which is a hierarchy
of semantic descriptors (id.), is an industry-specific or enterprise-specific
model. Although the Examiner maintains that Morgenstern' s semantic
metadata "are utilized for describing small business/supplier sales [which
are] industry/business specific" (Ans. 3; see Morgenstern col. 37, 11. 22-24
(describing constraints limiting a supplier to a small business)), the
Examiner does not sufficiently explain how semantic metadata are based on
an industry-specific (or enterprise-specific) model.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in concluding Morgenstern and Lennon teach the
disputed limitations of Appellants' claim 1. Independent claims 8, 12, and
16 include limitations of commensurate scope. Claim 20 depends on claim
1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims
1, 8, 12, 16, and 20.
With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2-5,
9-11, 13-15, and 17-19, rejected as obvious over Morgenstern and Lennon
as well as Bodain and/or Rausch, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness
rejections for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 (supra). The
Examiner does not assert, and we do not find, that the additional prior art
references remedy the deficiencies of Morgenstern (discussed supra).
5
Appeal2014-005594
Application 13/419,630
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred, as the
analysis in the Examiner's rejection is not sufficient to show that
Morgenstern and Lennon teach the recited features of claims 1-20.
CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
6