Ex Parte Helfman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

12831623 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

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.
12/831,623 07/07/2010 Jonathan Helfman 088325-0778809 2806
(099000US)
51206 7590 09/27/2017
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
YOON, SAE WON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
oraclepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com
KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN HELFMAN and
JOSEPH H. GOLDBERG
Appeal 2017-006768
Application 12/831,623
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 21—24, 26—35, 37-46, and 48—53, which are all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 1—20, 25, 36, and 47 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.
Appeal 2017-006768
Application 12/831,623
The Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention relates to providing an
interactive dendrogram representing a set of data. Spec. 12.
Representative Independent Claim 21
21. A method of providing an interactive representation of a
data set of sequential data, the method comprising:
clustering, by a computer system, sequences of the data set
into a hierarchical set of clusters of sequential data, wherein the
data set comprises eye tracking data and wherein the sequences
comprise scanpaths representing users’ eye movements while
viewing an image;
generating, by the computer system, a dendrogram based
on the clustered sequential data and representing a hierarchy of
the clusters of sequential data;
presenting, by the computer system, the dendrogram in a
first frame on a page of a user interface, wherein the dendrogram
comprises a graphical representation of an aggregate scanpath
representing scanpaths in each cluster of the hierarchical set of
clusters;
receiving, by the computer system, input of a selection of
a depth of the dendrogram via the user interface, wherein the
page includes a slider control indicating a currently selected
depth level of the dendrogram, wherein the slider control is
integrated with the dendrogram as a single interactive component
in the form of a user repositionable marker on the dendrogram to
indicate the currently selected depth level of the dendrogram
based on user manipulation of the slider control, and wherein
received the selection of the depth of the dendrogram via the user
interface is based on a current position of the slider control;
dynamically re-clustering, by the computer system, the
clustered sequential data into a plurality of new clusters
representing the hierarchical set of clusters of sequential data at
and based on the received selection of the depth of the
dendrogram as indicated by the user manipulation of the slider
control,
2
Appeal 2017-006768
Application 12/831,623
re-generating, by the computer system, the dendrogram
based on the reclustered sequential data and representing the re­
clustered sequential data at and based on the received selection
of the depth of the dendrogram as indicated by the current
position of the slider control; and
updating, by the computer system, the page with the re­
generated dendrogram, wherein the page includes a second frame
presenting a detail view illustrating detailed information for each
cluster of the hierarchical set of clusters at the selected level of
the dendrogram, wherein the detail view comprises a table
representing each sequence in the reclustered sequential data and
wherein updating the page comprises updating the second frame
based on the regenerated dendrogram.
App. Br. 15—16, Claims App’x (Contested limitations emphasized in italics).
Rejections
Rl. Claims 21—24, 26—29, 32—35, 37—40, 43—46, and 48—51 stand
rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combined teachings and suggestions of Mori (US 2006/0184461 Al,
published Aug. 17, 2006), Clelland et al. (US 2007/0105105 Al, published
May 10, 2007) (hereinafter “Clelland”), Jinwook Seo et al., Interactively
exploring hierarchical clustering results., 35-7 Computer 80—86 (2002)
(hereinafter “Seo”), Andrew Parkin et al., Identifying structural motifs in
inter-molecular contacts using cluster analysis Part 1. Interactions of
carboxylic acids with primary amides and with other carboxylic acid
groups., 8.3 CrystEngComm 257—64 (2006) (hereinafter “Parkin”),
Andersson et al. (US 7,805,437 Bl, published Sept. 28, 2010) (hereinafter
“Andersson”), and Julia M. West et al., eyePatterns: software for identifying
patterns and similarities across fixation sequences., Proceedings of the 2006
symposium on Eye tracking research & applications, ACM (2006)
(hereinafter “West”).
3
Appeal 2017-006768
Application 12/831,623
R2. Claims 30, 41, and 52 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of
Mori, Clelland, Seo, Parkin, Andersson, West, and Michael B. Eisen et
al., Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns., 95.25
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 14863—14868 (1998) (hereinafter “Eisen”).
R3. Claims 31, 42, and 53 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of
Mori, Clelland, Seo, Parkin, Andersson, West, Eisen, and Schuetze et al.
(US 2003/0110181 Al, published June 12, 2003) (hereinafter “Schuetze”).
Grouping of Claims
Based upon Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 13), we decide the
appeal of rejection R1 of claims 21—24, 26—29, 32—35, 37-40, 43—46, and
48—51 on the basis of representative claim 21. To the extent Appellants
have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for rejected claims 30,
31, 41, 42, 52, and 53, under rejections R2 and R3, such arguments are
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and any evidence
presented. Regarding the rejection of claim 21, we disagree with
Appellants’ arguments, and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and legal
conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action (3—20) from which
this appeal is taken, and (2) the findings, legal conclusions, and explanations
set forth in the Answer (3—11) in response to Appellants’ arguments. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our
analysis below.
4
Appeal 2017-006768
Application 12/831,623
Rejection R1 of Independent Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We decide the following issue presented in this appeal:
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err by finding the cited
combination of Mori, Clelland, Seo, Parkin, Andersson, and West would
have taught or suggested the contested limitation:
dynamically re-clustering, by the computer system, the
clustered sequential data into a plurality of new clusters
representing the hierarchical set of clusters of sequential data at
and based on the received selection of the depth of the
dendrogram as indicated by the user manipulation of the
slider control[,]
within the meaning of independent representative claim 21? 1 (emphasis
added)
The contested limitation recites in pertinent part: “dynamically re­
clustering ... by the user manipulation of the slider control.” (Claim 21).
Appellants contend: “Mori describes performing clustering based on
certain parameters and a selected algorithm, but Mori does not describe
these parameters being received through or based on user manipulation of
the displayed plane 601.” (App. Br. 12).
Regarding Mori’s Figure 8, Appellants contend:
Although the partitioning lines and planes in Mori
designate the position at which Mori's dendrograms are
1 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See e.g., Spec. | 69: “While illustrative and
presently preferred embodiments of the invention have been described
in detail herein, it is to be understood that the inventive concepts may be
otherwise variously embodied and employed, and that the appended claims
are intended to be construed to include such variations, except as limited
by the prior art.” (emphasis added).
5
Appeal 2017-006768
Application 12/831,623
clustered, these partitioning lines and planes are not received
through or based on user manipulation of any displayed user
interface components. Instead, Mori's partitioning lines 601 and
planes 801 and 901 are rendered automatically in response to the
clustering.
(Reply Br. 3).
The Examiner finds the disputed limitation “by the user manipulation
of the slider control” (claim 21) is taught or suggested by Mori’s step 1104
(Figure 11), which determines the “partitioning position using a GUI,
whereby the plane for partitioning the dendrogram can be dynamically
moved by designating the number of clusters or through operation of a
mouse.” (Final Act. 7—8, citing Mori 1 61) (emphasis added).
The Examiner additionally finds the user’s “manipulation of the slider
control,” as recited in claim 21, is taught or suggested by Mori’s Figures 8
and 9, which depict the partitioning plane being moved. {Id., citing Mori
139; see also Ans. 6—7). Thus, the Examiner maps the claimed “user
manipulation of a slider control” (claim 21) to Mori’s moving the
partitioning plane. (Mori, Figs. 8—9).
Based upon our review of the record, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s findings. In particular, we find Mori’s
changing the position of the partitioning plane, which causes a re-clustering,
teaches or at least suggests the contested limitation, in which “dynamic re­
clustering” results from the user’s manipulation of the slider control. (Mori
139). We further find Mori’s mouse movements, which can be performed
by a user, teach the disputed “user manipulation” limitation. {Id. 161).
Therefore, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing for essentially
the same reasons articulated by the Examiner in the Answer (4—10), as
further discussed above. We find the combined teachings of Mori, Clelland,
6
Appeal 2017-006768
Application 12/831,623
Seo, Parkin, Andersson, and West teach or suggest all that is contested by
Appellants.2 Given the strength of the evidence relied upon by the Examiner
(Final Act. 3—20; Ans. 4—10), we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain rejection R1 of representative independent
claim 21. The associated grouped claims, 22—24, 26—29, 32—35, 37-40,
43-46, and 48-51, which were also rejected under rejection Rl, fal
claim!. See “Grouping of Claims” supra.
Remaining Rejections R2 and R3 of Claims 30, 31, 41, 42, 52, and 53
Appellants do not separately contest the patentability of the remaining
claims 30, 31, 41, 42, 52, and 53 on appeal. Instead, Appellants rely on
arguments previously advanced for independent claim 21. (App. Br. 13).
However, for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 21,
we find these arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections R2 and R3 of remaining claims 30, 31, 41, 42, 52, and
53 over the cited combination of references. Arguments not made are
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2 Our reviewing court guides: ‘“the question under [35 U.S.C. § 103] is not
merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made.’” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807
(Fed. Cir. 1989), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); see also MPEP § 2123.
7
Appeal 2017-006768
Application 12/831,623
Conclusion
For at least the aforementioned reasons, and on this record, Appellants
have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. We find a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate
legal conclusion of obviousness for all contested claims on appeal.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21—24, 26—35,
37—46, and 48-53.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8