Ex Parte Hickman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13710574 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131710,574 12/11/2012 Charles Hickman
56436 7590 09/01/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
83100604 8851
EXAMINER
TRAN,LOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES HICKMAN and APRIL SLAYDEN MITCHELL
Appeal2015-005820
Application 13/710,574
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-15, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. App. Br. 10, 13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies The Hewlett-Packard Development Company,
LP, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 12, 2015, "App. Br."), the Reply
brief (filed May 19, 2015), the Examiner's Answer (mailed March 3, 2015,
Appeal2015-005820
Application 13/710,574
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method for building an information directory.
See Abstract.
The Invention
Claims 1, 6, and 15 are independent. 3 An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A computer implemented method of orgamzmg an
information directory, the method comprising:
sending source data to an information extractor, wherein
the source data includes first source metadata;
extracting second source metadata using the source data;
merging the first source metadata and the second source
metadata into third source metadata; and
organizing the third source metadata in the information
directory, using a first subportion of the third source metadata to
create nodes in the information director'; and using a second
subportion of the third source metadata to organize the nodes in
the information directory.
"Ans."), the Final Action (mailed September 12, 2014, "Final Act."), and the
Specification (filed December 110 2012, "Spec.") for their respective
details.
3 Claim 11 recites, inter alia, "[t ]he non-transitory computer-readable
medium .... " Claim 12 recites, inter alia, "[a] system for building an
information directory .... " Claims 13-15 recite, inter alia, "[ t ]he system of
claim 11 .... " Should prosecution continue in this case, the Examiner
might consider whether Claims 13-15 are indefinite.
2
Appeal2015-005820
Application 13/710,574
References and Rejection
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Eliashberg, et al.,
Vydiswaran, et al.,
Bergman, et al.,
US 8,661,001 B2 Filed Jan. 26, 2006
US 2009/0125529 Al Filed Nov. 12, 2007
US 2012/0313948 Al Filed Nov. 3, 2011
1. Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eliashberg and Bergman. Final Act. 2-5.
2. Claims 6-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vydiswaran, Eliashberg, and Bergman. Final Act.
5-11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-15 in light of
1A'.Lppellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. \X/ e have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We
are not persuaded that Appellants identified reversible error. Upon
consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are
unpatentable. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, to
the extent consistent with our analysis below. We provide the following
explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings
3
Appeal2015-005820
Application 13/710,574
primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as
they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7-14.
CLAIMS 1-5: OBVIOUSNESS OVERELIASHBERG AND BERGMAN
Appellants argue Claims 1-5 as a group and specifically argue
independent Claim 1. App. Br. 10. We therefore limit our discussion to the
common elements of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (l)(vii) (2007).
Third source metadata.
Appellants contend that Bergman does not teach third source
metadata, and therefore, does not teach using a first subportion of the third
source metadata to create nodes in the information directory, nor using a
second subportion of the third source metadata to organize the nodes in the
information directory. App. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds that Bergman teaches third source metadata
comprising person and authorship information, e.g., "person i~\~ is an author
of content X," wherein "person A" is the first portion of the third source
metadata and "is an author of' is the second portion of the third source
metadata. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner further finds that Bergman teaches
the first portion ("person A") and the second portion ("is an author of') are
organized into the information directory as disclosed in figure 2 (node 118 is
linked to node 110 by edge 112). Id.
Appellants reply that neither the Final Office Action nor the
Examiners Answer identifies a correlation between the third source metadata
described in the Eliashberg reference and the first and second subportions of
said third source metadata described in the Bergman reference. Reply Br. 3.
4
Appeal2015-005820
Application 13/710,574
Appellants are not persuasive. The Examiner finds Eliashberg teaches
a template which is structured to capture data description (i.e., metadata) and
thus teaches merging first and second source metadata into a third source
metadata. Final Act. 3. The Examiner cites Bergman as teaching what data
comprise first and second metadata. Id.
CLAIMS 6-15: OBVIOUSNESS OVER VYDISWARAN,
ELIASHBERG, AND BERGMAN
Appellants argue Claims 6-15 as a group and specifically argue
independent Claims 6 and 12. App. Br. 13. We therefore limit our
discussion to the common elements of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)
(1 )(vii).
Appellants substantially reprise their arguments, discussed above, that
Eliashberg and Bergman fail to teach merging first and second metadata into
a third metadata. See i\.pp. Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 4--5.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5