Ex Parte IWASAKI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2018

14682713 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/682,713 04/09/2015 Y ohei IWASAKI
4372 7590 12/12/2018
ARENT FOX LLP
1717 K Street, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5344
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.
036596.00001 5888
EXAMINER
WANG, JIN CHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2018 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):
patentdocket@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOHEI IWASAKI and HIROAKI KIMURA
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention generates and displays graphs with nodes and
connecting edges. In one aspect, the system can lay out common nodes such
that they have the same positional relationship before and after updating the
graph. See generally Abstract; ,r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as NS Solutions Corporation.
App. Br. 4.
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
1. A graph generating device generating a graph
including a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges
connecting the nodes based on graph structure data including
data indicating a shape and a size of each node and data
indicating connection relationship to the nodes for each edge,
and displaying the graph on a screen of a display unit, the graph
generating device comprising:
a storage device in which the graph structure data
corresponding to the generated graph is stored as first graph
structure data and layout original data including data relating to
a layout position of each node described in the first graph
structure data is stored, the layout original data being generated
when processing according to a predetermined graph layout
algorithm is executed based on the first graph structure data for
generating the graph; and
a processor configured to:
when a user gives an instruction to update content of the
first graph structure data corresponding to the generated graph
using an input unit, store and register the new graph structure
data reflecting content of the instructed update in the storage
device as second graph structure data with respect to the first
graph structure data;
specify nodes described as common to the second graph
structure data registered, and the first graph structure data with
respect to the second graph structure data as common nodes and
calculates a layout position of each node described in the
second graph structure data by executing processing according
to the graph layout algorithm based on the second graph
structure data under the conditions that concerning each of the
specified common nodes, relative positional relationship
defined by the layout original data including data relating to the
layout position of each node described in the first graph
structure data is maintained;
generate the layout original data including data relating
to the layout position of each node described in the second
graph structure data, the layout position of each node being
calculated, and store the generated layout original data in the
storage device as layout original data after updating with
respect to the second graph structure data; and
2
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
generate a graph based on the layout original data after
updating and the second graph structure data with respect to the
layout original data after updating and displays the graph on the
screen of the display unit;
wherein the processor is further configured to, when the
user gives an instruction to change layout of the graph
displayed on the screen of the display unit using the input unit,
generate change data indicating content of the instructed
change, store the change data in the storage device in
association with the graph structure data corresponding to the
graph, generate a graph for which the layout has been changed
according to the instruction of the change and display the
generated graph on the screen of the display unit.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2014/0292765 Al; published
Oct. 2, 2014), Calsyn (US 2011/0296250 Al; published Dec. 1, 2011),
Nachmanson (US 2008/0291203 Al; Nov. 27, 2008), and Wong (US
2012/0143849 Al; published June 7, 2012). Final Act. 8-27. 2
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Maruyama discloses a graph generating
device with every recited element of claim 1 including a processor
configured to ( 1) specify the recited common nodes, and (2) calculate each
node's layout position in the second graph structure data such that the
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
December 16, 2016 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed July 17, 2017
("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed November 17, 2017
("Ans."); and ( 4) the Reply Brief filed January 1 7, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
common nodes' relative positional relationship defined by layout original
data, including data relating to each node's layout position in the first graph
structure data, is maintained. Final Act. 3-16. The Examiner also cites
Wong's Figures 3(a) to 3(d) and paragraph 33 in connection with
maintaining this relative positional relationship. Final Act. 11.
The Examiner also cites Wong for implicitly teaching every recited
element of claim 1, including a "layout position calculating unit" that,
among other things, maintains the common nodes' relative positional
relationship as claimed. Final Act. 18-20 (citing Wong ,r 43; Figs. 3(a}-
3( d)).
Despite finding that Maruyama and Wong individually and
collectively teach every recited limitation, albeit implicitly in some
instances, the Examiner additionally cites (1) Nachmanson for explicitly
teaching generating layout original data when processing according to a
predetermined graph layout algorithm, and (2) Calsyn for explicitly teaching
storing and registering new graph structure data as second graph structure
data when a user instructs updating content of the first graph structure data,
as claimed. Final Act. 13-14, 16-18, 21. Based on these collective
teachings, the Examiner concludes that the claim would have been obvious.
Final Act. 8-21.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest,
among other things, ( 1) calculating a layout position of each node described
in the second graph structure data, and (2) maintaining the recited common
nodes' relative positional relationship defined by the layout original data,
including data relating to each node's layout position in the first graph
structure data. App. Br. 19-23; Reply Br. 5-12. According to Appellants,
4
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
Maruyama's system generating aggregated graphs based on each node's
average coordinates and associated layout positions is not the same as
executing a graph layout algorithm and then calculating a layout position as
claimed. App. Br. 21-22. Appellant emphasizes that because node "C" is in
a different relative layout in relation to other nodes in Maruyama's Figures 4
and 6(a), the layout original data in the first graph structure data is not
maintained. App. Br. 22.
Appellants add that not only does the Examiner's rejection improperly
"piecemeal" the cited references together to arrive at the claimed invention,
the Examiner does not clearly articulate the reasons why the claimed
invention would have been obvious apart from conclusory statements that
merely rephrase the recited features. App. Br. 23-26.
ISSUES
(1) Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Maruyama, Calsyn, Nachmanson, and Wong collectively would
have taught or suggested a processor configured to ( 1) specify common
nodes, and (2) calculate each node's layout position in the second graph
structure data such that the common nodes' relative positional relationship
defined by layout original data, including data relating to each node's layout
position in the first graph structure data, is maintained ("the relative
positional relationship limitation")?
(2) Is the Examiner's proposed combination of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion?
5
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
ANALYSIS
As noted above, the Examiner rejection relies on two references,
namely Maruyama and Wong, for teaching the disputed relative positional
relationship limitation. First, the Examiner's rejection relies principally on
Maruyama's Figure 6 and paragraph 111 3 for teaching every element of this
limitation, but, notably, adds that this disclosure teaches maintaining the
relative positional relationship in view of Wong's Figures 3 (a)-3 ( d) and
paragraph 33. Final Act. 10-11. Second, the Examiner also finds that
Wong implicitly teaches every recited element of claim 1, including a
"layout position calculating unit" that, among other things, maintains the
common nodes' relative positional relationship as claimed. Final Act. 18-20
(citing Wong ,r 43; Figs. 3(a}-3(d)).
In effect, the Examiner finds that either Maruyama or Wong
individually teach or suggest all limitations of claim 1, including the
disputed relative positional relationship limitation. Compare Final Act. 10-
11 with Final Act. 18-20. But the Examiner also finds that Maruyama and
Wong collectively teach or suggest all recited limitations, including the
disputed relative positional relationship limitation. See Final Act. 11, 21.
The Examiner's alternative reliance on Maruyama and Wong is
notable, for Appellants do not squarely address-let alone persuasively
rebut-the Examiner's particular findings from Wong in connection with the
disputed relative positional relationship limitation, let alone Wong's
3 Although the Examiner cites Maruyama's paragraph 110 in connection
with the relative positional relationship limitation (Final Act. 10-11 ), the
associated quoted passage is actually in paragraph 111. Accord App. Br. 20
n.1 (acknowledging this discrepancy). We, therefore, cite the correct
paragraph here, and treat the Examiner's error in this regard as harmless.
6
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
teaching the other recited limitations. Rather, Appellants' arguments are
directed principally to Maruyama 's alleged shortcomings with respect to the
relative positional relationship limitation, and the cited references'
combinability. See App. Br. 19--26; Reply Br. 5-12.
Given the Examiner's undisputed findings from Wong, we are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 for that reason
alone. Nevertheless, we are also unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's
additional reliance on Maruyama for at least suggesting the relative
positional relationship limitation.
In construing the term "relative positional relationship," we agree with
the Examiner that the term is somewhat broad, and does not require absolute
positions of elements associated with graph structure data. See Ans. 4--5.
Nor does the Specification define this term, unlike other terms that leave no
doubt as to their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 3 ( defining "node" and "edge").
The Specification does, however, refer to a relative positional
relationship as defined by the layout original data such that common nodes
are laid out to have the same positional relationship as that in the graph
before data was updated. See Spec. ,r 48, 70. For example, common nodes 2
to 10 in Appellants' Figure 11 are laid out so that they have the same
positional relationship as they had before data was updated in Figure 5.
Spec. ,r 77. As these figures illustrate, nodes 2 and 9 are in the first
hierarchy, node 10 (which depends from node 9) is in the second hierarchy,
node 8 (which depends from nodes 5 and 3) is in the fourth hierarchy, etc.
By ensuring that the common nodes have the same positional relationship as
that which existed before data was updated, the user does not have to change
7
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
the common nodes' layout which can not only "save bother," but also reduce
processing load. See Spec. ,r,r 77, 83, 90.
Although this description informs our understanding of the recited
relative positional relationship, the term is not so limited. That is, apart from
merely referring to this "positional relationship," neither the claim nor the
Specification requires any particular type or form of positional relationship
apart from the fact that it is relative.
Turning to the prior art, Maruyama's system aggregates plural graph
structures into a single graph structure, and displays the aggregated structure
so that changed and unchanged elements are identifiable. Maruyama,
Abstract. To this end, aggregating unit 106 can determine each node's
coordinates such that a layout will be as close as possible to layouts in the
plural graph structures before aggregation. Maruyama ,r 53; Fig. 1.
As shown below, Maruyama's Figure 3 shows plural graph structures
G 1---G4 at successive points in time, and Figure 4 shows an aggregate graph
structure generated from these plural graph structures. See Maruyama
,r,r 90-98. Maruyama's Figure 3 is reproduced below.
8
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
0
01
t1
02
t2
G3
t3
FIG. 3
~
GY.®. B--.~
C0 Ci)
G4
t4
Maruyama's Figure 3 showing graph structures G 1--G4
Maruyama's Figure 4 is reproduced below.
4 5 4 ,..,. .. --~'- ,.,,.--·~'- ,/ .. --~
• • • • ti t2 t3 t4
@ Aiirtbu,e a @ Al!ribute b @ Attribute c
FIG.4
Change !ndlcalor
Q · · · · · · Deleted element
Q = Genemterl e1emen,
,. :.·
11 ::,-~ ::c ::c ::c Element once gen,watsd arid then delE=!ed
0- Elenmr,t once rleieted and then restored
Q ..,..._,n... Element whose cont€nts have been changed
D---------· U11ctwr1ged elem~<11!
t{Time}
Maruyama's Figure 4 showing aggregate graph structure generated
from graph structures Gl--G4
9
Appeal2018-002661
Application 141682,713
As shown above, the aggregate graph structure not only shows the
changed elements, but also those that are unchanged, including nodes "B"
and "D." Upon user selection, the aggregate graph structure can contain a
"contracted element" that displays the unchanged elements, namely nodes B
and D and edge B-D, as a single-line square representing an unchanged
contracted node "BID" as shown in Maruyama's Figure 6(a) reproduced
below. See Maruyama ,r,r 109--113; Figs. 2 (steps S118-S120), 6(a).
Maruyama's Figure 6(a) is reproduced below.
4 5 4
'~'~\~ • • • • t1 t2 t3 t4
G1-4
@Attribute a @Attribute b 0Attribute c
(a)
Maruyama's Figure 6(a) showing aggregate graph structure with
contracted node "BID"
In addition, upon user selection, a partial graph structure can be
displayed by expanding the contracted node "BID" as shown in Maruyama's
Figure 6( c) reproduced below. See Maruyama ,r 114
10
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
Maruyama's Figure 6(c) is reproduced below.
4 5 4
,..~~,/~
• • • • t1 t2 t3 t4
-~~
,'A', , . , ... _ _..,
Gi-4
12] Attribute a @ Attribute b 0 Attribute c
(c)
Maruyama's Figure 6(c) showing expanded contracted node "B/D"
Given this functionality, we discern no error in the Examiner's finding
that Maruyama at least suggests maintaining the relative positional
relationship of at least the uncontracted nodes as shown in Figures 6(a) and
6( c ). See Ans. 8. Although the contracted node "BID" is expanded via user
input such as by clicking a mouse as noted in Maruyama's paragraph 111,
the graph effectively changes from the unexpanded graph shown in Figure
6(a) to the expanded graph shown in Figure 6(c). As the Examiner explains,
the uncontracted nodes in Figure 6( c) remain fixed in their positions, and do
not change from their positions in Figure 6(a). Ans. 8. This functionality,
then, at least suggests maintaining the recited relative positional relationship,
particularly when considered in light of the functionality of Wong's Figures
3A to 3D and paragraph 43 as the Examiner indicates. See Final Act. 11.
11
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
That these particular findings from Wong are undisputed as noted previously
only further weighs in favor of the Examiner.
Appellants' arguments regarding Maruyama's alleged shortcomings
are unavailing because they are not commensurate with the scope of the
claim, which does not preclude Maruyama's graph expansion functionality
noted above. As the Examiner indicates, the term "relative positional
relationship" is broad and does not require absolute graph positions. Ans.
4--5. That the relative positional relationship is maintained between
common nodes "B" and "D" in the four graph structures in Maruyama's
Figure 3-the very positional relationship preserved in the aggregate graph
structure in Figure 4-----only further bolsters the Examiner's findings and
conclusions in this regard. See Ans. 5---6, 9-10, 12-13 (finding that the
positions of the nodes in the Gl---G4 graphs in Maruyama's Figure 3 are the
same).
We also find unavailing Appellants' contention that the Examiner's
rejection improperly "piecemealed" the cited references together to arrive at
the claimed invention contrary to agency procedure. See App. Br. 23-24
(citing MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 707.07(g)
(9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)). To be sure, the MPEP explains why
references should not be multiplied in rejections, namely by adding to the
burden and cost of prosecution. See MPEP § 904.03 ("Multiplying
references, any one of which is as good as, but no better than, the others,
adds to the burden and cost of prosecution and should therefore be
avoided."). And although the MPEP advises avoiding undue multiplication
of references when rejecting each claim on all valid grounds available, it
does not prohibit some multiplicity of references, so long as it is not undue.
12
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
See MPEP §§ 707.07(g). That is not the case where, as here, the Examiner
relies on four references in rejecting the claims as obvious, albeit with some
overlap in their respective teachings as noted previously. In any event, it is
well settled that the number of references cited is not a factor in assessing
the propriety of an obviousness rejection, but rather what the references
would have meant to ordinarily skilled artisans. See In re Gorman, 933 F .2d
982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Lastly, despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 24--
26), we find the Examiner reasonably articulated why ordinarily skilled
artisans would have combined the teachings of various secondary references
with those of Maruyama in concluding that the claims would have been
obvious. See Final Act. 14--21. Apart from merely alleging that the
Examiner's proposed rationale is conclusory and rephrasing the claim
language, Appellants have not particularly shown error in the Examiner's
proposed combination. Nor have Appellants squarely addressed-let alone
persuasively rebutted-the Examiner's particular findings based on Calsyn,
Nachmanson, and Wong that form the basis for the proposed combination.
See App. Br. 19--26; Reply Br. 5-12. In short, because the Examiner has
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the
Examiner's obviousness conclusion based on the referenced teachings of the
cited references, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's proposed
combination.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 12 not argued separately with
particularity.
13
Appeal2018-002661
Application 14/682,713
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 12
under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11,
and 12.
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
14