Ex Parte Benson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2016

13624721 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016)

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.
13/624,721 09/21/2012 Gregory D. BENSON SLOG/0002 5061
26290 7590 12/13/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P.
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
ZONG, RUOLEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2016 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):
PS Docketing @ pattersonsheridan .com
pair_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
jcardenas @pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY D. BENSON
Appeal 2016-001194
Application 13/624,721
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3—9, 11—17, 19, and 20, which are the only pending
claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.3
1 Appellant identifies Venture Lending & Leasing VI, Inc. as the real party
in interest.
2 Claims 2, 10, and 18 are canceled.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Sept. 21, 2012 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed Oct. 17, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed April 20, 2015 (“App. Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer mailed Aug.
24, 2015 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2016-001194
Application 13/624,721
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to predictive field linking for data integration
pipelines. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for automatically
configuring a data pipeline, the method comprising:
identifying a first field in an upstream component of the
data pipeline that is associated with a first data type and a set of
candidate fields in a downstream component of the data pipeline
that are associated with the first data type;
for each candidate field included in the set of candidate
fields, computing a field linking score that indicates the
likelihood of the candidate field corresponding to the first field;
selecting a first candidate field from the set of candidate
fields that corresponds to the first field;
creating a link between the first field and the first
candidate field; and
executing the data pipeline such that data stored in the first
field is transmitted to the first candidate field during execution.
(Claims App’x.)
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3—9, 11—17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Weinberg (US 2002/0194196 Al, Dec. 19, 2002) and
Grechanik (US 2009/0217302 Al, Aug. 27, 2009). (Final Act. 2-5.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 9, and 17
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues the combination of Weinberg and Grechanik does
not disclose the method recited by claim 1 of “automatically configuring a
data pipeline,” which includes “identifying a first field in an upstream
2
Appeal 2016-001194
Application 13/624,721
component of the data pipeline that is associated with a first data type and a
set of candidate fields in a downstream component of the data pipeline that
are associated with the first data type.” (App. Br. 7—12.) Appellant notes
that claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations. (App. Br. 7.)
Specifically, Appellant argues that Weinberg transforms data from
one database to another using source and destination fields that are known in
advance. (App. Br. 7—8 citing Weinberg || 6, 26, 40.) Weinberg’s
transformation uses partitioning (a) to create or reconstitute a hierarchy in
the source data, (b) to merge values stored in two or more distinct source
fields to a single value for each record, and (c) to combine fields to establish
a direct, one-to-one mapping between source and destination value
combinations that might not otherwise exist. {Id. at Weinberg 126.)
Weinberg’s transformation maps a real or phantom source field or field
combination to a corresponding destination field on a one-to-one basis. {Id.
citing Weinberg 140.) The transformation may involve merging of the
values of fields (for example, a numeric value merged with a unit of
measure) to create the one-to-one mapping. (App. Br. 10 citing Weinberg
1147, 49.)
Appellant contends Weinberg’s transformation requires advanced
knowledge of the source and destination fields, and in no way discloses
identifying “a set of candidate fields in a downstream component of the data
pipeline.” (App. Br. 8—9 citing Final Act. 3 (citing Weinberg || 7, 46, 49,
148, 150)). Moreover, Appellant argues Weinberg teaches converting data
types as needed in order to mix and match fields to fit, which is not the same
as the claimed identifying and matching of a field of an upstream component
and multiple candidate fields of downstream components based on the same
datatype. (App. Br. 11.)
3
Appeal 2016-001194
Application 13/624,721
With regard to Grechanik, Appellant states that this reference
discloses scoring of GUI models. (App. Br. 11 citing Grechanik H 201,
202, 204.) Appellant contends Grechanik is silent with respect to identifying
a set of candidate fields in a downstream component of the data pipeline that
are associated with the first data type. (Id.)
Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner finds that Weinberg discloses a system that maps
source fields and values to destination fields and values, and allows for
transforming field values based on destination field type. (Ans. 4 citing
Weinberg Abstract.) The Examiner states that in order to map source fields
to destination fields, Weinberg discloses that each field in a source table is
mapped to a corresponding field in a destination table by comparing field
names, noting that Weinberg states “ideally, the corresponding fields would
have the same names. In addition, the data types of the source and
destination fields are compatible.” (Ans. 4 citing Weinberg 17.) The
Examiner finds Weinberg’s system has to know/obtain/identify both field
data type in the source table and field data type in the destination table in
order to compare field names and field type for determining whether the
source and destination field types are compatible. (Id.) Thus, the Examiner
concludes Weinberg teaches identifying (e.g., mapping) a set of candidate
fields in a downstream component of the data pipeline (e.g., a corresponding
field in a destination table) that are associated with the first data type (e.g.,
compatible data types), as claimed.
The Examiner also finds Weinberg discloses “[i]f the conditions
discussed above exist, data transformation can proceed automatically
without user intervention.” (Ans. 4—5 citing Weinberg | 8.) The Examiner
4
Appeal 2016-001194
Application 13/624,721
thus concludes Weinberg discloses “automatically configuring a data
pipeline” as claimed.
Board Analysis
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in the findings or the
conclusion of obviousness based on Appellant’s arguments in light of the
claims as presented on appeal.
Appellant argues Weinberg requires advanced knowledge of the
source and destination fields, implying the claimed invention requires no
such advanced knowledge. However, we find no language in the claims that
precludes advanced knowledge of the source and destination fields. Thus,
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims as
presented on appeal. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
(stating that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability).
Regarding Appellant’s argument that Weinberg converts data types to
obtain a one-to-one mapping of source to destination field types, we agree
with the Examiner this capability of Weinberg need not be employed when
the data types are compatible. (Ans. 4 citing Weinberg 17.) The Examiner
did not rely on Weinberg’s data type conversion in the rejection, but on
Weinberg’s mapping of compatible data types. Accordingly, we do not find
this argument persuasive of Examiner error.
We also note Appellant’s argument assumes the claim limitation
reciting “a set of candidate fields in a downstream component of the data
pipeline” must include multiple candidate fields. Claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In
re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The
Specification does not define or require that a set of candidate fields must
5
Appeal 2016-001194
Application 13/624,721
include multiple members. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a set
can include only one member.
We agree with the Examiner that Weinberg’s disclosure that “[i]f the
conditions discussed above exist, data transformation can proceed
automatically without user intervention” teaches “automatically configuring
a data pipeline” as claimed. (Ans. 4—5 citing Weinberg | 8.)
Concerning Appellant’s argument that Grechanik is silent with respect
to identifying a set of candidate fields in a downstream component of the
data pipeline that are associated with the first data type, the Examiner relies
on Weinberg, not Grechanik, to teach this feature.
For the foregoing reasons, we find the Examiner has provided “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Weinberg
and Grechanik teaches or at least suggests the claim limitation of
“automatically configuring a data pipeline,” which includes “identifying a
first field in an upstream component of the data pipeline that is associated
with a first data type and a set of candidate fields in a downstream
component of the data pipeline that are associated with the first data type.”
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims. Therefore we sustain the rejection of claims 3—8, 11—16, 19, and 20
for the reasons previously stated. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
6
Appeal 2016-001194
Application 13/624,721
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3—9, 11—17, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7