Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

12432951 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 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.
12/432,951 04/30/2009 Mo Liu 82249604 8099
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THU N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@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 MO LIU, SONG WANG, CHET AN KUMAR
GUPTA, ISMAIL ARI, and ABHAY MEHTA
Appeal 2016-0055951
Application 12/432,951
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-23, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-005595
Application 12/432,951
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention generally relates to “build[ing] a model of
multi-dimensional sequence data in real-time with cuboids that aggregate the
multi-dimensional sequence data over both patterns and dimensions[ and]
providing] search results for a query.” (Specification (filed Apr. 30, 2009)
(“Spec.”) Abstract.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below (with
minor reformatting):
1. A method comprising:
building, with a computer, a model of multi-dimensional
sequence data in real-time with cuboids that aggregate the multi­
dimensional sequence data over both patterns and dimensions,
wherein building the model in real-time includes:
processing event instances into a base cuboid of the model
as the event instances come; and
incrementally updating one or more other cuboids in the
model by propagating the event instances bottom-up through a
pattern hierarchy and a category hierarchy; and
providing, with a computer, search results for a query in
real-time as events that are aggregated into the multi-dimensional
sequence data occur.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Kemp et al.
(“Kemp”)
Naibo et al.
(“Naibo”)
Lo et al.
(“Lo”)
US 2003/ 0236795 Al
US 2010/ 0017380 Al
US 2010/0198777 Al
Dec. 25, 2003
Jan. 21,2010
Aug. 5, 2010
2
Appeal 2016-005595
Application 12/432,951
Nguyen et al. US 2011/0166949 A1 July 7,2011
(“Nguyen”)
Dong Xin et al., Star-Cubing: Computing Iceberg Cubes by Top-Down and
Bottom-Up Integration, Proceedings of the 29th VLDB Conference
(2003) (“Xin”).
Claims 1,2, 5-8, and 14—172 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lo, in view of Nguyen, and further in view of
Xin. (See Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 2, 2015) (“Final Act.”) 3-8.)
Claims 3,4, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lo, in view of Nguyen and Xin, and further in view
ofNaibo. (See Final Act. 8-10.)
Claims 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lo, in view of Nguyen and Xin, and further in view of
Kempt. (See Final Act. 10-12.)
Claims 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lo in view of Xin. (See Final Act. 13-15.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1—23.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Lo teaches or
suggests “incrementally updating one or more other cuboids in the model by
propagating the event instances through a pattern hierarchy [and] Xin
2 The Examiner also listed claim 4 for this rejection but did not address
claim 4 in the analysis. Therefore, we assume that the Examiner did not
intend to include claim 4 for this rejection.
3
Appeal 2016-005595
Application 12/432,951
discloses propagating the event instances bottom-up and a category
hierarchy.” (Final Act. 4.) Appellants contend that the Examiner erred
because “the Examiner fails to present any evidence that Xin discloses
propagating event instances bottom-up ‘through a pattern hierarchy and a
category hierarchy’.” (App. Br. 8; Reply 4-5.)
Claim 1 requires “incrementally updating one or more other cuboids
in the model by propagating the event instances bottom-up through a pattern
hierarchy and a category hierarchy.” We are not persuaded that the portions
of Lo and Xin cited by the Examiner teach or suggest “incrementally
updating ... by propagating the event instances bottom-up through a pattern
hierarchy and a category hierarchy.” (Emphasis added; see Final Act. 4—5.)
Even assuming arguendo that the Examiner’s findings are correct that Lo
teaches or suggests “incrementally updating ... by propagating the event
instances through a pattern hierarchy,” and Xin teaches or suggests
“propagating the event instances bottom-up and [through] a category
hierarchy,” both references at most teach or suggest incrementally updating,
by propagating the event instances bottom-up, through one type of hierarchy
(either a pattern hierarchy or a category hierarchy). In other words, neither
reference teaches nor suggests incrementally updating using two types of
hierarchies.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the
rejection of claim l.3 Thus, we also do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
3 Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons discussed
herein, we need not address Appellants’ further arguments. See Beloit Corp.
v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an
4
Appeal 2016-005595
Application 12/432,951
rejections of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2—8, 22, and 23,
which depend on claim 1. Independent claims 9 and 14 contain similar
limitations at issue, and the Examiner’s findings regarding claims 9 and 14
are similar to the Examiner’s findings concerning claim 1. (See Final Act.
6—7; 13—14.) Therefore, we also do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of independent claims 9 and 14 and dependent claims 10-13 and
15—21, each of which depends from either claim 9 or claim 14.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-23 is reversed.
REVERSED
administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single
dispositive issue”).
5