Ex Parte Ozonat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2018

13563108 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2018)

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.
13/563,108 07/31/2012 Mehmet Kivanc Ozonat 83013407 4910
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
JACOB, AJITH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2018 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):
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 MEHMET KIVANC OZONAT and
CLAUDIO BARTOLINI
Appeal 2017-002857
Application 13/563,108
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOYCE CRAIG, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-002857
Application 13/563,108
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to organizing content. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for organizing
content comprising:
building a customized content corpus for a user;
building a concept graph customized for the user’s
context based on the customized corpus; and
organizing, utilizing multi-view clustering, the
content within the corpus based on the concept graph.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chen et al. US 2004/0220905 A1 Nov. 4, 2004
“Chen”
Larcheveque et al. US 2011/0238408 Al Sept. 29, 2011
“Larcheveque”
Ozonat US 2012/0102037 Al Apr. 26,2012
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
1 Appellants identify Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development, LP, as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2
Appeal 2017-002857
Application 13/563,108
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Larcheveque in view of Ozonat and Chen.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend
“Larcheveque, Ozonat, and Chen do not teach or suggest, ‘building a
customized content corpus for a user; building a concept graph customized
for the user's context based on the customized corpus, ’ as recited by
independent claim 1(App Br. 6). Appellants paraphrase the paragraphs
relied upon by the Examiner in the rejection and generally contend that a
textual chat and matching a pattern to determine required conditions in order
to change a user’s credentials, as described by Larcheveque, does not teach
or suggest the claimed “building a customized content corpus for a user;
building a concept graph customized for the user’s context based on the
customized corpus. ” (App Br. 6, 7).
Appellants further contend that the Ozonat reference does not cure the
deficiencies of the Larcheveque reference. (App. Br. 7). Appellants argue:
[Tjhat searching a hierarchical clustering of message threads, as
described by Ozonat, does not teach or suggest, “building a
customized content corpus for a user; building a concept graph
customized for the user’s context based on the customized
corpus” as recited by Appellants’ independent claim 1, at least
because searching a hierarchical message thread is not built
based on a customized corpus.
(App. Br. 8). Appellants further discuss paragraphs 38 and 39 (which the
Examiner does not rely upon) and paragraph 7 of the Ozonat reference and
generally contend that “Ozonat describes a hierarchical clustering of
3
Appeal 2017-002857
Application 13/563,108
message threads that can be searched. However, Ozonat is silent as to any
organization based on a concept graph.” (App Br. 8).
Finally, Appellants contend Chen does not cure the deficiencies of the
combination of the Larcheveque and Ozonat references. (App Br. 8).
The Examiner addresses the three references and the combination in
the statement of the rejection in the Final Office Action and in the response
to arguments section in the Examiner’s Answer. (Final Act. 2-9; Ans. 2-5).
We find Appellants do not identify any portion of the Specification or
specific definitions which define or limit the context of Appellants’ claimed
invention. Moreover, Appellants do not file a Reply Brief to respond to the
Examiner’s clarifications.
Merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c¥F)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.”). Merely alleging that the references fail to support an
obviousness rejection is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error.
Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8
(BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693.pdf.
Here, we find Appellants’ arguments are conclusory in nature and fail
to address the thrust of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections.
4
Appeal 2017-002857
Application 13/563,108
“Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the
record.” In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole,
326 F.2d 769, 773 (CCPA 1964)). This reasoning is applicable here.
On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive
arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error. Cf. In re
Baxter TravenolLabs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8, not
separately argued.
Claims 9 and 13
With respect to independent claims 9 and 13, Appellants repeat the
language of claims 9 and 13 and rely upon the same reasoning set forth with
respect to independent claim 1. See App. Br. 6-9. Appellants generally
contend that the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
See id. Merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Here, we find Appellants’ arguments are
conclusory in nature and fail to address the thrust of the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections. On this record, we find Appellants have failed to
present substantive arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of
Examiner error in the obviousness rejection of independent claims 9 and 13
and dependent claims 10-12, 14, and 15, not separately argued.
5
Appeal 2017-002857
Application 13/563,108
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-15 based upon
obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1-15.
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
6