Ex Parte MUEEN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2016

13406142 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/406,142 02/27/2012 Abdullah A. MUEEN
56436 7590 05/19/2016
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.
82850218 2376
EXAMINER
SPIELER, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2016 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 ABDULLAH A. MUEEN, KRISHNAMURTHY
VISWANATHAN, and CRETAN K. GUPTA
Appeal2014-007209 1
Application 13/406,142
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS,
and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-15. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for
determining the distance between a first and second data sequences
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Co, LP. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-007209
Application 13/406,142
(ABCBA$, ABCA#), each including a distinct symbol string. Spec. i-f 1, Fig.
2. In particular, upon identifying the lowest common ancestor (ABC) of the
data sequences (i.e., common symbols between the data sequences), a
distance (i.e., disparate symbols) is determined therebetween (A#, BA$). Id.
i-f 22, Fig. 2.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method, comprising:
determining, by a processor, a lowest common ancestor
of a first data sequence and a second data sequence;
identifying, by the processor, based on the lowest
common ancestor,
symbols that differ between the first data sequence and
the second data sequence; and
determining, by the processor, a distance between the
first data sequence and the second data sequence based on the
symbols;
wherein the first data sequence and the second data
sequence are time series.
Rieck et al.
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 8,271,403 B2
2
Sept. 18, 2012
(filed Dec. 8, 2006)
Appeal2014-007209
Application 13/406,142
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
anticipated by Rieck. 2
ANALYSIS
§ 102(b) as being
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief on pages 12-19, and in the Reply Brief on pages 1-5.3
Appellants argue Rieck does not describe a lowest common ancestor
(LCA) of a first data sequence and a second data sequence, as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 12-15. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in
light of Appellants' arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants'
contentions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejection from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-11, Ans. 2-11.
However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for
emphasis as follows.
2 Although the Examiner's statement of the rejection omits claim 14, the
corpus of the rejection discusses the cited claim, and addresses the
limitations thereof. Ans. 8. We, therefore, treat the omission of claim 14
from the statement of the rejection as harmless error.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the supplemental Appeal Brief (filed January 28, 2014), the Reply
Brief (filed June 10, 2014), and the Answer (mailed April 10, 2014) for the
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
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)(vii).
3
Appeal2014-007209
Application 13/406,142
First, Appellants argue Rieck relates to partitioning each of a plurality
of data sequences into n-gram subsequences including overlapping (n-1)
symbols. Id. at 12 (citing Rieck 2:24-29). However, Appellants argue that
Rieck' s disclosure of identifying overlapping symbols in stored sequences
does not describe the LCA thereof because they are disposed toward the end
of the first subsequence, and toward the beginning of the second
subsequence, inconsistent with LCA, as defined in the Specification. Id. at
13 (citing Spec. i-f 22, allegedly defining LCA of two sequences as the
common symbols from the start of the sequence). Further, Appellants argue
the following:
[M]erely storing subsequences into a trie as described by
Rieck, 4 where the stored sequences have a lowest common ancestor,
fails to disclose determining the lowest common ancestor of the
sequences. Rieck fails to even acknowledge the existence of a lowest
common ancestor for the two sequences.
Reply Br. 2. These arguments are not persuasive.
At the outset, we note although Appellants' Specification does not
expressly define "least common ancestor," the Specification indicates that
the LCA of two sequences can include common symbols from the start of
two data sequences stored on the deepest node in a tree that is ancestor to
two given leaves. Spec. i-f 22, Fig. 2, Reply Br. 1 (citing
http://xlinux.nist.gov/ dads/HTML/lowest common.html). Accordingly, we
construe "least common ancestor" of two sequences consistent with
Appellants' Specification as indicated hereinabove.
4 Reply Br. 2 (citing to Rieck 7:62---63).
4
Appeal2014-007209
Application 13/406,142
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Rieck discloses two data
sequences (band, bank), each including from the start thereof the common
symbols "ban," which are stored in the deepest node in a tree that is ancestor
to two given leaves ("d" and "k"). Ans. 9 (citing Rieck, Fig. 1 ). We,
therefore, echo the Examiner's conclusion that the cited disclosure of Rieck
of "ban" comports with the noted claim construction of "lowest common
ancestor." Further, as admitted by Appellants in the statement reproduced
above, the cited disclosure does describe LCA. We also agree with the
Examiner that even though Rieck' s disclosure does not refer to the terms
"lowest common ancestor" verbatim, it suffices that one of ordinary skill
would understand that the cited disclosure of Rieck describes the disputed
terms, as construed above. Ans. 9.
Second, we find unavailing Appellants' argument that Rieck fails to
describe identifying, based on the LCA, symbols that differ between the two
sequences. App. Br. 14. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Rieck's
disclosure of symbol "d" in the first sequence and symbol "k" in the second
sequence are not part of the LCA "ban," and delineate the distance between
the two sequences. Ans. 10.
Third, we find unpersuasive Appellants' argument that the data
sequences disclosed by Rieck are not time series. App. Br. 14. We agree
with the Examiner that because the TCP packets in each sequence has an
expected temporal ordering, they describe time series. Ans. 10.
5
Appeal2014-007209
Application 13/406,142
It follows Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 4 and 5, not
agued separately.
Regarding the rejection of claim 7, Appellants reiterate similar
arguments as those submitted for the patentability of claim 1. App. Br. 15.
As noted above, these arguments are not persuasive. Further, Appellants
argue that Rieck does not describe computing the distance between the data
sequences using symbols that are not included in the LCA. App. Br. 16.
This argument is unavailing. We agree with the Examiner that Rieck
discloses calculating similarities and distances between sequences,
respectively, based on common symbols shared between them, and different
symbols that distinguish them. Ans. 10, Rieck 2:59---65.
Regarding the rejection of claim 12, Appellants argue that Rieck does
not describe determmmg the distance between sequences based on the
accumulation of disparate symbols between the sequences. App. Br. 16-17.
This argument is not persuasive. Rieck discloses similarity between the
sequences can be expressed as an aggregation of common symbols between
them. Rieck 3: 11-34. Likewise, dissimilarity (distance) between sequences
can be expressed as an aggregation of disparate symbols between them. Id.
Regarding the rejection of claims, 2, 8, and 13, Appellants argue
Rieck does not describe constructing a suffix tree comprising a first set of
symbols that comprise the first data sequence and a second set of symbols
that comprise the second data sequence. App. Br. 17. This argument is not
persuasive. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Rieck discloses a first
6
Appeal2014-007209
Application 13/406,142
suffix tree (band) that comprises the first data sequence, and a second suffix
tree that comprises the second data sequences (bank). Ans. 10 (citing to
Rieck Fig. 1 ).
Regarding the rejection of claim 14, Appellants argue that Rieck does
not describe partitioning a data sequence into segments into which a
plurality of symbols are assigned. App. Br. 17-18. This argument is not
persuasive. Rieck's discloses partitioning data sequences (band and bank)
into segments/nodes of a tree into which letters in the sequences are assigned
individually. See Rieck Fig. 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 3---6, 9-11, and 15, because
Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or
have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 12-14 above, claims 3-6,
9-11, and 15 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
DECISION5
We affirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1-15.
5 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider
entering a nonstatutory subject matter rejection of claims 7-11, which recite
a computer-readable storage medium. However, Appellants' Specification
does not define computer-readable storage medium to exclude transitory
media. Consequently, the claimed medium encompasses transitory media,
which is not patent eligible. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857
(PTAB 2013) (precedential).
7
Appeal2014-007209
Application 13/406,142
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
8