11833884 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

Ex Parte Cragun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2013

11833884 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/833,884 08/03/2007 Brian J. CRAGUN ROC920030127US2 8683 46797 7590 09/17/2013 IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1 3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829 EXAMINER HICKS, MICHAEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2165 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRIAN J. CRAGUN, JULIA E. RICE, PETER M. SCHWARZ, WILLIAM C. SWOPE, and HOA T. TRAN ____________ Appeal 2011-002791 Application 11/833,8841 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, DENISE M. POTHIER, and PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 As Appellants indicate (App. Br. 4), this application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/600,382, now U.S. Patent No. 8,321,470. A related appeal (2010-002397) was decided April 18, 2012 by a different panel reversing the rejection of claims 10, 13, 14, 22, and 28 under § 103. Appeal 2011-002791 Application 11/833,884 2 Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a computer-implemented method for indexing annotations made for different data objects. See Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis: 1. A computer implemented method, comprising: creating an annotation corresponding to a first data object identified by a first plurality of identifying parameters that identify a location of the first data object; creating an index for the first data object, the index comprising one or more index values, each generated based on one or more of the first plurality of identifying parameters that identify a location and a type of the first data object; wherein the index contains entries for a plurality of annotated data objects corresponding to each of a plurality of different data types, each data object having been indexed in the index according to its respective data type; creating a record containing the annotation corresponding to the first data object and the index for the first data object; and storing the record in a storage medium. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Dobrowski US 7,152,072 B2 Dec. 19, 2006 Chatterjee US 7,162,691 B1 Jan. 9, 2007 The Rejections Claims 1, 3-7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chatterjee. Ans. 4-9. Claims 2, 8, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chatterjee and Dobrowski. Ans. 9-10. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER CHATTERJEE Claims 1 and 3-6 Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Chatterjee Appeal 2011-002791 Application 11/833,884 3 discloses all its limitations, except for an index that contains entries for annotated data objects corresponding to each of different data types, each data object having been indexed in the index according to its respective data type. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner finds that Chatterjee teaches mappings depending on a media type association and finds that this teaching of different media types with different parameters provides a motivation to have an index containing entries for annotated data objects corresponding to different data types, each data object having been indexed according to its respective data type. Ans. 5 (citing col. 1, ll. 42-46, col. 3, ll. 48-50, and col. 4, ll. 56-62). Among other arguments, Appellants argue that Chatterjee does not teach or suggest indexing a data object according to its respective data types. App. Br. 13. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Chatterjee would have taught or suggested creating an index, wherein the index contains entries for annotated data objects corresponding to each of a plurality of different data types, each data object having been indexed in the index according to its respective data type? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants state: The index described in Chatterjee simply does not teach or suggest indexing a data object “according to its respective data types,” as claimed. The index in Chatterjee provides an index of whatever text Appeal 2011-002791 Application 11/833,884 4 terms happen to be in the encoded metadata of a multimedia file. The index simply reflects what terms appear in the metadata, irrespective of any data type. App. Br. 13. Appellants further explain “[n]othing in this text or keyword index is in fact, indexed ‘according to its respective data type,’ as required by the independent claims. Instead, an index is created which provides a list of web pages that include a given keyword.” Reply Br. 3. Given the record, we agree. Chatterjee teaches analyzing a Web page to be indexed to identify media data, extracting information describing the media data, inserting the extract information as text annotations into a copy of the original Web page used for indexing purposes, and presenting the annotated Web page for processing by conventional text-based Internet indexing. Col. 1, ll. 29-64. However, the described “conventional text-based” indexing used in Chatterjee provides little details as to how text or even a data object is indexed in the index, let alone indexed according to its respective data type. See col. 1, ll. 36-37, 63-64; col. 3, ll. 51-52; col. 4, ll. 3-5; col. 8, ll. 11-12. Nor has the Examiner demonstrated or provided sufficient evidence that one skilled in the art would have recognized that conventional text-based indexing includes indexing data objects in the index according to its respective data type. Chatterjee teaches extracting information from the Web page according to a specific media type (e.g., a data type). See Ans. 12; see also col., 3, l. 63- col. 4, l. 2, col. 5, ll. 36-38, col. 6, ll. 20-51; Figs. 1-2. The Examiner asserts that this extraction is used for indexing and thus also corresponds to the indexing according to the media or data type. See Ans. Appeal 2011-002791 Application 11/833,884 5 12-13. We disagree. That is, the extracting process in Chatterjee performed according to a media type occurs prior to inserting the extracting information into a copy of the Web page and indexing. Claim 1, on the other hand, requires creating an index, wherein the index contains entries for annotated data objects corresponding to each of a plurality of different data types, each data object having been indexed in the index according to its respective data type – not each data object having been indexed in the index with information extracted according to its respective data type. Lastly, the Examiner further notes that the extracted information in Chatterjee is indexed using an association between the original Web page and the metadata which was extracted. Ans. 13. Chatterjee states that the resulting index stores the association between the original Web page and the metadata which describes the page’s media content. Col. 1, ll. 38-40; col. 3, ll. 47-50. Chatterjee teaches extracted metadata can be classified according to predefined annotation element types, including media file format. See col. 7, ll. 1-3, 20, 45. This suggests that the index contains metadata that describes a media format or data type. However, this fails to suggest that the metadata is also indexed according to its data type. In sum, Chatterjee falls short of teaching or suggesting the created index contains a plurality of annotated data object entries corresponding to different data types, each data object having been indexed in the index according to its respective data type as recited. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-6 for similar reasons. Appeal 2011-002791 Application 11/833,884 6 Claims 7 and 10 Independent claim 7 differs in scope from independent claim 1. Claim 7 is broader in scope than claim 1 in that “the index contains entries for a plurality of annotated data objects corresponding to each of the plurality of different data types” (emphasis added) rather than “according to its respective data type” as recited in claim 1. Claim 7 further recites “modifying an index for the annotated data object by mapping the identifying parameters to columns in an index table, as specified by the mapping functions of the selected mapping.” Appellants contend this later limitation is not taught or suggested by Chatterjee. App. Br. 14-16. We agree. As discussed above, Chatterjee does not provide many details about how the conventional indexing occurs, let alone how an index is modified for an annotated data object. Chatterjee teaches using the type of media file to determine what to extract from a media file and using the extracted information to annotate a Web page, which is then parsed to create an index. See col. 1, ll. 29-64. However, this does not teach or suggest an identifying parameter (e.g., the media type) is used in modifying an index or mapping parameters to particular columns in an index. Granted, Chatterjee teaches the index stores the association between the original Web page and the metadata which describes the page’s media content. Col. 1, ll. 38-40; col. 3, ll. 48-50. This suggests a mapping between the original Web page and metadata. Yet, this teaching falls short of suggesting or providing adequate evidence of modifying an index for the annotated data object by mapping the recited identifying parameters to columns in an index. Appeal 2011-002791 Application 11/833,884 7 Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 7 and dependent claim 10 for similar reasons. Claims 11 and 12 Independent claim 11 recites “creating an index for each annotated data object by mapping the identifying parameters to columns in a common index table, as specified by the mapping functions of the selected mappings.” This limitation is similar to independent claim 7. We agree with Appellants that Chatterjee does not teach or suggest this limitation for the reasons stated above in connection with claim 7, particularly Chatterjee failing to teach or suggest mapping identifying parameters to particular columns in an index. For the above reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 11 and dependent claim 12. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER CHATTERJEE AND DOBROWSKI Claims 2, 8, 9, 13, and 14 depend directly or indirectly from independent claims 1, 7, and 11. The Examiner finds that Chatterjee and Dobrowski teach or suggest all the limitations in claims 2, 8, 9, 13, and 14. The Examiner has not relied on Dobrowski to cure the above-noted deficiencies of claims 1, 7, and 11. See Ans. 9-10. Because we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 11, we likewise will not sustain the rejections of claims 2, 8, 9, 13, and 14. Appeal 2011-002791 Application 11/833,884 8 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-14 under § 103.2 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 is reversed. REVERSED rwk 2 Should prosecution continue, the Examiner should consider whether there are any double patenting issues with U.S. Patent No. 8,321,470.