Ex Parte Rafei et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

14210283 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/210,283
98804 7590
Reed Smith LLP
P.O. Box488
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
03/13/2014
09/19/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Keyvan Rafei
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.
13-30011-US 6704
EXAMINER
RAAB, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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):
ptoipinbox@reedsmith.com
gdonovan@reedsmith.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEYV AN RAFEI and ALEX T ARANENKO 1
Appeal2018-003084
Application 14/210,283
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--42, which are all the claims pending
in this application. Final Act. l; Appeal Br. 2. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Geographic Services, Inc., as the real party in interest.
2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Mar. 13, 2014
(claiming benefit of US 61/780,871, filed Mar. 13, 2013); Appeal Brief
("Appeal Br.") filed Aug. 7, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Jan.
29, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final
Act.") mailed Oct. 7, 2016; and Answer ("Ans.") mailed Nov. 27, 2017.
Appeal2018-003084
Application 14/210,283
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns computer-readable media,
apparatuses, and methods for contextual data mining using a relational data
set. The relational data set comprises data objects in one or more classes and
defines relationships between the data objects. The data mining process
monitors data sources external to the relational data set for related
information. The process detects activity corresponding to a first data object
in the relational data set by identifying an association between information
gathered from the external data sources and information in the first data
object, and determines if the activity exceeds a predefined threshold. The
process also analyzes the relationships between the data objects of the
relational data set, identifies a second data object in the relational data set
that is connected to the first data object based on the analysis, and monitors
additional data sources external to the relational data set that are associated
with the second data object based on a determination that the activity
corresponding to a first data object exceeds the predefined threshold. Spec.
,r,r 9, 21-30, and 33--44; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method executed by one or more computing
devices for contextual data mining using a relational data set, the
method comprising:
monitoring, by at least one of the one or more computing
devices, one or more data sources external to the relational data
set for information relating to the relational data set, wherein the
relational data set comprises one or more data objects in one or
2
Appeal2018-003084
Application 14/210,283
more classes and defines relationships between the one or more
data objects in the one or more classes;
detecting, by at least one of the one or more computing
devices, activity corresponding to a first data object in the one or
more data objects of the relational data set by identifying an
association between information gathered from at least one data
source external to the relational data set in the one or more data
sources external to the relational data set and information in the
first data object, wherein the activity corresponding to the first
data object is determined based at least in part on the information
gathered from the at least one data source external to the
relational data set;
determining, by at least one of the one or more computing
devices, whether the activity corresponding to the first data
object exceeds a predefined threshold;
identifying, by at least one of the one or more computing
devices, a second data object in the one or more data objects of
the relational data set which is connected to the first data object
based at least in part on an analysis of the relationships between
the one or more data objects of the relational data set; and
monitoring, by at least one of the one or more computing
devices, one or more additional data sources external to the
relational data set and associated with the second data object
based at least in part on a determination that the activity exceeds
the predefined threshold.
Rejections on Appeal3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 29,
31, 32, 35, and 36 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
3 The Examiner rejected claims 15-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Final Act. 5), and withdrew the
rejection in the Advisory Action dated Apr. 4, 2017 (see Adv. Act. 2).
3
Appeal2018-003084
Application 14/210,283
Schirmer et al. (US 2003/0131007 Al, published July 10, 2003)
("Schirmer"). 4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 5, 6, 9-14, 16, 19, 20, 23-28,
30, 33, 34, and 37--42 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Schirmer and Redlich et al. (US 2010/0010968 Al,
published Jan. 14, 2010) ("Redlich ").
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the dispositive issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding Schirmer discloses "monitoring ...
one or more data sources external to the relational data set for information
relating to the relational data set" within the meaning of Appellants' claim 1
and the commensurate limitations of claims 15 and 29?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (and independent claims 15
and 29) as being anticipated by Schirmer. See Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 2-3.
Appellants contend that Schirmer does not disclose limitations of claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 4--23; Reply Br. 1-13. Specifically, Appellants contend,
inter alia, that
The Examiner's explanation does not address the recited
claim limitations. The independent claims recite monitoring
"one or more data sources external to the relational data
4 The Examiner lists claim 25 in the statement of the rejection, but omits
claim 25 and addresses claim 29 in the substantive rejection. See Final Act.
11-13. Accordingly, we correct the Examiner's harmless typographical
error and clarify the statement of rejection for consistency of the record.
4
Appeal2018-003084
Application 14/210,283
set for information relating to the relational data set." The
Examiner's statement that "data sources are monitored" does not
explain how these features are disclosed in Schirmer. The
Examiner has not even identified what he considers to be the
recited "relational data set" and what he considers to be the
recited "one or more data sources external to the relational data
set."
(Appeal Br. 9-10; see Appeal Br. 8-12). Further, Appellants contend
More significantly, even if Schirmer did disclose storing
primary and secondary object sets on different databases, the
Examiner has not explained how this disclosure would be
relevant to the recited claim limitation of monitoring "one or
more data sources external to the relational data set for
information relating to the relational data set." The Examiner
has fixated on the recited term "external" and failed to identify
any disclosure or suggestion of "monitoring" any data sources
external to a relational data set[] or of monitoring the data
sources "for information relating to the relational data set."
(Reply Br. 4; see Reply Br. 1-5).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner-cited portions of
Schirmer (see Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 2-3 (citing Schirmer ,r,r 43, 45, 47, 100,
and 104)) do not explicitly describe the disputed limitation of "monitoring ..
. one or more data sources external to the relational data set for information
relating to the relational data set" ( claim 1, emphasis added), and that the
Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the cited portions of Schirmer
describe these features. See Reply Br. 1-5. As pointed out by Appellants,
(supra), Schirmer does not describe external data sources or monitoring of
any kind, much less monitoring external data sources. Schirmer, instead,
describes a relational database utilizing primary and secondary sets of data
objects. See Schirmer,r,r 43, 45--47, 100, and 104; Abstract.
5
Appeal2018-003084
Application 14/210,283
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that Schirmer anticipates Appellants' claim 1.
Independent claims 15 and 29 include limitations of commensurate scope.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 17, 18, 21, 22, 31, 32, 35, and 36 depend on and
stand with claims 1, 15, and 29, respectively.
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 9--14, 16, 19, 20, 23-
28, 30, 33, 34, and 37--42, as being obvious in view of Schirmer and
Redlich, and relies on the same reasoning as claim 1 (supra) for rejecting
these claims. See Final Act. 14--29. The Examiner does not suggest, and
has not established on this record, that the additionally cited Redlich
reference overcomes the aforementioned deficiencies of Schirmer.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 2, 5, 6, 9--14, 16, 19, 20, 23-28, 30, 33, 34, and 37--42.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuasively shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 29, 31, 32, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
Appellants have persuasively shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2, 5, 6, 9--14, 16, 19, 20, 23-28, 30, 33, 34, and 37--42 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--42.
REVERSED
6