Ex Parte Gargi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2013

11413808 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ULLAS GARGI
___________

Appeal 2011-0026791
Application 11/413,808
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
DANIEL S. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 4-13, and 15-20. Claims 2, 3, and 14 have been
canceled. (App. Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett Packard Development Company, L.P.
(App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2011-002679
Application 11/413,808

2

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and system for dynamically navigating
datasets obtained from a data repository. (Spec. [0010], [0011].) In
particular, upon receiving a requested dataset, metadata attributes associated
therewith are dynamically identified to thereby create a current set of
discriminative facets, which are ranked, categorized, and subsequently
displayed. (Fig. 1, Spec. [0020], [0021], [0032].)
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method of dynamic data navigation comprising:
receiving a data set request;
dynamically identifying metadata attributes associated
with items in the data set in response to the data set request;
creating a first set of discriminative facets based on the
identified metadata attributes;
ranking the discriminative facets in the first set;
selecting for display a subset of the first set of facets
based on the ranking; and
displaying only those facets that are in the selected
subset.
Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Allen US 2004/0044661 A1 Mar. 4, 2004

Ka-Ping Yee et al., Faceted Metadata for Image Search and
Browsing, Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI ’03), 401-408 (2003) (hereinafter “Yee”).
Appeal 2011-002679
Application 11/413,808

3

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects 1, 4-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Allen and Yee.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 10-16 and the Reply Brief, pages 2-4.

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of Allen and Yee teaches or suggests creating
discriminative facets based on dynamically identified metadata associated
with a requested dataset, as recited in claim 1?
Appellant argues that the proposed combination does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 10-12; Reply
Br. 2-4.) According to Appellant, while Yee discloses a user selecting
categories (metadata) from a dynamic interface to further refine a search
result, the categories are not created based on metadata dynamically
identified in response to a user’s request. That is, Yee discloses generating a
dynamic display of predefined (static) metadata in response to the user
request, whereas the claim requires dynamically identifying the metadata in
the response to the request. (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2-3.) Next,
Appellant argues that while Yee discloses displaying images in alphabetical
order according to title, such ranking results in displaying all facts in the set,
as opposed to the selected few in the subset. (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3-
4.)
In response to the first argument, the Examiner finds that Yee’s
disclosure of classifying metadata for organizing a collection of data along
Appeal 2011-002679
Application 11/413,808

4

several dimensions teaches dynamically identifying the metadata in response
to a dataset request. (Answer 17.) Next, the Examiner finds that Yee’s
disclosure of sorting entries in a result set based on various facets to thereby
generate groups, and subcategories of facets associated therewith teaches
selecting a subset of the first facet based on the ranking. (Answer 18.)
Based upon our review of the record before us, we find no error with
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection regarding claim 1. Yee discloses an
interface that enables users to navigate through large image collections by
utilizing hierarchical faceted metadata that dynamically generates query
previews. (Yee, Abstract.) In particular, upon retrieving images, in
response to a user’s image request, the interface provides the user with a list
of metadata associated with the images from which the user selects a set of
category labels (metadata) to thereby show sample images for similar
categories. (Id. at 402, col. 1.) The selected set of metadata can be arranged
hierarchically (id. at col. 2) and sorted along with images associated
therewith to organize the image results as subcategories. (Id. at 403, col. 2.)
We agree with the Examiner that Yee’s disclosure of classifying the
metadata along several dimensions (e.g., hierarchically) teaches dynamically
identifying the metadata associated with an image set retrieved in response
to a search request. That is, the metadata population associated with the
retrieved image must be first identified. Then, upon selecting each metadata
candidate from the identified metadata population, an entry in the metadata
hierarchy is selected to gradually narrow down the images to be displayed
thereby dynamically identifying the selected metadata to create the first
discriminative facets, as well as a subset thereof. Further, upon sorting the
reduced image set, the metadata corresponding thereto are arranged
Appeal 2011-002679
Application 11/413,808

5

accordingly to display the metadata hierarchy including categories and
subcategories associated therewith. We are therefore satisfied that Yee’s
disclosure teaches the disputed limitations. It therefore follows that
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 4-13 and 15-20, to the extent
Appellant has either not presented separate patentability arguments or has
reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, claims 4-13 and 15-20 fall therewith. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Further, to the extent Appellant has raised
additional arguments for patentability of claims 4-13 and 15-20 (App. Br.
12-16), we find that the Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and every
one of those arguments by a preponderance of the evidence. (Answer 19-
23.) Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning
incorporated herein by reference. Consequently, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-13 and 15-20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 4-13,
and 15-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc