Ex Parte Parasuram et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

14034063 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
14/034,063 09/23/2013 Arvind Parasuram 2013P10268US01 5005
45113 7590 09/29/2017
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, EL 32817
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KIM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARVIND PARASURAM and JAVEED NIZAMI
Appeal 2017-006185
Application 14/034,063
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-006185
Application 14/034,063
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ application relates to performing an efficient search
within a data management application or a Web site by allowing a user to
configure search filters based on changing business knowledge or data
conditions without writing code and redeploying a solution. Spec, 12—15.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for rules-based knowledge-driven search filters,
the method performed by a data processing system and
comprising:
receiving metadata for a plurality of searchable objects, by
the data processing system, the metadata including at least one
of an object type definition and object properties;
defining search filter rules based on user properties and
data conditions, by the data processing system;
performing a search according to a rule-based
configuration, by the data processing system, the rule-based
configuration including filters for object properties and filter
ordering rules, the filter ordering rules specifying the order in
which the filters are applied; and
displaying search results according to the rule-based
configuration, by the data processing system.
2
Appeal 2017-006185
Application 14/034,063
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gluzman Peregrine US 7,856,434 B2 Dec. 21, 2010
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Gluzman Peregrine.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Gluzman Peregrine discloses all the limitations of
independent claim 1, including “performing a search according to a rule-
based configuration, by the data processing system, the rule-based
configuration including filters for object properties and filter ordering rules,
the filter ordering rules specifying the order in which the filters are applied.”
Final Act. 9. Appellants contend Gluzman Peregrine fails to disclose the
“performing” step of claim 1, specifically with respect to “filter ordering
rules specifying the order in which the filters are applied.” App. Br. 23—25.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
The Examiner’s rejection does not identify which feature in Gluzman
Peregrine meets the claim 1 limitation of “filter ordering rules specifying the
order in which the filters are applied”; rather, the Examiner simply provides
a citation to Figure 6B and column 11 of the reference. Final Act. 9. In
column 11, Gluzman Peregrine describes filtering the results of a search for
“Plasma TVs” according to a particular “Labor Day TV Sale” rule after
determining whether the conditions for the rule are met—i.e., the proper
3
Appeal 2017-006185
Application 14/034,063
region (North America) and time period (Labor Day weekend) that trigger
the rule are satisfied. Gluzman Peregrine, col. 11,11. 20—56. However,
column 11 of Gluzman Peregrine does not describe performing a search that
involves filter ordering rules that specify the order in which multiple filters
are applied.1
In the Answer, the Examiner provides “Gluzman discloses (on fig.
6B, col. 11 lines 20—55) the user performs a search for ‘Plasma TVs,’ on a
Labor Day weekend. . . . The rule filter specifies values for region and
promotion (the filter ordering rules specifying the order in which the filters
are applied) to be matched in the rule metadata.” Ans. 4. However, it is
not clear how rule metadata specifying the region and promotion (i.e., the
time period) for where and when a particular rule should be applied
discloses filter ordering rules for ordering the application of multiple filters,
as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, on this record, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1, independent claims 9 and 17 which recite
commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2—8, 10-16, and 18—20.
1 Appellants draw our attention to Gluzman Peregrine, column 9, in their
arguments regarding the “filter ordering rules” limitation of claim 1. App.
Br. 24—25. Here, Gluzman Peregrine describes “[a] rule or plurality of rules
may be specified in a script. In such a case, the rules may be combined
using sequential, conditional, or randomized execution. . . . The Rules
Engine 135 may execute the rules in order, which may be established by
assigning a number to an order field of each rule . . . .” Gluzman Peregrine,
col. 9,11. 25—57. While we do not find this to be an anticipatory disclosure
with respect to the “filter ordering rules” limitation of claim 1, the Examiner
may wish to consider this disclosure under an obviousness analysis in the
event of further prosecution of this application.
4
Appeal 2017-006185
Application 14/034,063
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1—20.
REVERSED
5