Ex Parte Thomas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2015

12870733 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/870,733 08/27/2010 Joy Thomas
56436 7590 01/04/2016
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.
82947652 1410
EXAMINER
LE, THU NGUYET T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2016 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 JOY THOMAS, SAURAJ GOSWAMI, and
V AMSI SALAKA
Appeal2013-010035
Application 12/870,733
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, 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 decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 10-21. The Examiner
finds that claims 4--9 include allowable subject matter. (Final Act. 1-2, 10;
App. Br. 15.) 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec."), filed August 27, 2010
(claiming benefit of US 61/250,135, filed October 9, 2012); Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") filed March 4, 2013; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed
August 9, 2013. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed
June 11, 2013, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.")
mailed October 4, 2012.
Appeal2013-010035
Application 12/870,733
We affirm.
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns document analysis systems,
computer-readable storage media, and methods for analyzing and grouping
documents. For each document the method computes a hash vector based on
word count information, assigns the document to an initial cluster of
documents based on an edit-distance constraint, and merges the initial
clusters of documents into final clusters of documents. Two of the initial
clusters are merged (into a final cluster) when a second edit-distance
constraint is satisfied. The second edit-distance constraint requires a
similarity of topology between the initial clusters, wherein the topology
includes distances between documents within the initial clusters. (Spec. i-fi-1
2, 7-15; Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. In a computer system having a processor and a
computer-readable storage medium, a method for grouping
near-duplicate documents, the method comprising:
for each document in a corpus of documents to be
analyzed, computing, by the processor, a hash vector based on
word count information for the document, the hash vector
including a plurality of components;
assigning, by the processor, each document to one of a
plurality of initial clusters of documents, wherein each of the
initial clusters contains a root document and at least some of the
initial clusters further contain at least one child document, and
wherein each of the child documents of any one of the initial
clusters satisfies a first edit-distance constraint relative to the
2
Appeal2013-010035
Application 12/870,733
root document of that one of the initial clusters, the first edit-
distance constraint being defined as an upper limit on a number
of components of the hash vectors that are different between the
root document and the child document;
merging, by the processor, the initial clusters to form a
plurality of final clusters, wherein during the merging, a first
one and a second one of the initial clusters are merged in the
event that the first one of the initial clusters and the second one
of the initial clusters satisfy a second edit-distance constraint,
the second edit-distance constraint being a constraint requiring
similarity of topology between the first initial cluster and the
second initial cluster, wherein the topology includes distances
between documents within each of the first and second initial
clusters; and
storing in the computer readable storage medium,
by the processor, a list of the documents associated with each of
the final clusters.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3 and 10-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Suarez (US 2008/0082531 Al, published Apr. 3,
2008) and Patterson (US 2007 /0174267 Al, published July 26, 2007).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants'
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that Suarez and Patterson
collectively would have taught or suggested:
[M]erging, by the processor, the initial clusters to form a
plurality of final clusters, wherein during the merging, a first
one and a second one of the initial clusters are merged in the
event that the first one of the initial clusters and the second one
3
Appeal2013-010035
Application 12/870,733
of the initial clusters satisfy a second edit-distance constraint,
the second edit-distance constraint being a constraint requiring
similarity of topology between the first initial cluster and the
second initial cluster, wherein the topology includes distances
between documents within each of the first and second initial
clusters,
(claim 1) (App. Br. 16-17, Claims Appendix) within the meaning of
Appellants' claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 10 and 16?
FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and the Final Office
Action mailed October 4, 2012, as our own, except as to those findings that
we expressly overturn or set aside in the Analysis that follows.
ANALYSIS
Appellants do not separately argue independent claims 1, 10, and 16
or dependent claims 2, 3, 11-15, and 17-21. (A.pp. Br. 12.) A.ppellants
provide separate arguments for claims 13 and 18. (App. Br. 13-14.)
Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 and dependent claim 13 as
representative of Appellants' arguments and grouping with respect to claims
1-3 and 10-21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2--4, 6-7),
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer
(Ans. 4--9) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the
findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the
following for emphasis.
4
Appeal2013-010035
Application 12/870,733
The § 103 Rejection of Claim 1
Appellants contend that Suarez and Patterson do not teach the
disputed features of representative claim 1, namely-
[M]erging ... initial clusters to form a plurality of final
clusters, wherein ... the initial clusters are merged in the event
that the first one of the initial clusters and the second one of the
initial clusters satisfy a second edit-distance constraint, ...
requiring similarity of topology between the first initial cluster
and the second initial cluster, wherein the topology includes
distances between documents within each of the first and
second initial clusters;
(claim 1). (See App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 4---6.) Specifically, Appellants
contend that "Suarez does not teach or suggest merging a first cluster and a
second cluster together based on a similarity of the topology between the
first cluster and the second cluster." (App. Br. 9.) Appellants assert that
Suarez instead describes grouping clusters based on cluster vectors and such
a cluster vector "does not indicate the distances between the documents
within the cluster. Thus, the cluster vector of a vector in Suarez is not the
same as or equivalent to the 'topology' of a cluster, as recited in independent
claim 1." Id. at 1 0.
We interpret claim language to give the recited limitations the
"broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the [S]pecification" in
accordance with our mandate that "claim language should be read in light of
the [S]pecification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Appellants' Specification explains that cluster "topology" is
synonymous with cluster "structure." (Spec. i-f 88.) We agree with the
5
Appeal2013-010035
Application 12/870,733
Examiner that Appellants' lexicography accords the recited "similarity of
topology" (claim 1) with a broader meaning than the "'distance between
documents within each of the first and second initial clusters"' (Ans. 4) or
else "similarity of topology" would be superfluous. (Ans. 4--5.) Thus, we
broadly but reasonably conclude "similarity of topology" encompasses
similarity of cluster structure.
We find Appellants contentions unavailing of Examiner error. As
explained by the Examiner, Suarez explicitly describes grouping (merging)
clusters of documents together based on similarity between the clusters
(such that similarity does not fall below a threshold). (Ans. 4---6 (citing
Suarez i-f 61 ). ) Therefore, we find, as did the Examiner (Ans. 4---6), that
Appellants' merging of clusters based on similarity of topology (the second
edit-distance constraint) reads on Suarez's grouping based on similarity of
the clusters (cluster structure).
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings with respect to
Patterson - that Patterson describes distance between documents in a
cluster. (Final Act. 4 (citing Patterson i-f 92).) We agree with the Examiner
that Patterson describes grouping documents based on the distance
(differences) between documents. Appellants' Specification explains such
merging constraints - a "merge constraint can be chosen to guarantee that
if two clusters satisfy the constraint, merging them will not increase the
cluster diameter." Cluster diameter is defined to be "the maximum edit
distance between documents in the merged cluster." (Spec. i-f 84.) Patterson
explains that clustering documents using a "pre-set diameter, or distance
parameter, i.e.[,] the respective distance between each document and each
other document in a cluster .... " (Patterson i-f 92.) Thus, we find Patterson
6
Appeal2013-010035
Application 12/870,733
describes not only "distances between documents" within different clusters,
but also the structure of such clusters (i.e., the topology of the clusters).
Even if were to agree with Appellants, arguendo, that "claim 1
defines the topology of a cluster as including the distances between
documents within the cluster" and that "the system of Suarez does not
compare the topology of one cluster with the topology of another cluster"
(App. Br. 10), Appellants do not persuasively explain why one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Suarez and
Patterson as proffered by the Examiner.
Appellants' arguments do not take into account what the combination
of Suarez and Patterson would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art-
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; ... Rather, the test is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
We find that it would have been well within the level of skill of one
skilled in the art to combine such known techniques to utilize Patterson's
clustering technique and cluster structure (topology) with the cluster
grouping (merging) techniques - using a similarity threshold - taught by
Suarez. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill" (citations omitted)). We are not persuaded that
7
Appeal2013-010035
Application 12/870,733
combining the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the
manner proffered by the Examiner would have been "uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" at the time of Appellants'
invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative claim 1,
independent claims 10, and 16, and dependent claims 2, 3, 11-15, and 17-
21, not separately argued with particularity (supra).
The§ 103 Rejection of Claims 13 and 18
Appellants contend that Suarez and Patterson do not teach the
disputed features of representative claim 13, namely- "applying a hash
function to a different subset of the words in the dictionary" to generate a
"vector representation compris[ing] a hash vector" (claim 13). (A.pp. Br.
13-14; Reply Br. 6-7.) We disagree.
As explained by the Examiner, Appellants' Specification describes the
hash function operating on word counts (occurrences) and is merely a
derivation of data. (Ans. 7-9.) Suarez describes applying a hash algorithm
and a document vector based on word counts. (Ans. 7-9 (citing Suarez
iii! 37-39, 46, 49, 64).)
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 13 and claim 18, not separately argued with
particularity (App. Br. 14). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 13 and 18.
8
Appeal2013-010035
Application 12/870,733
CONCLUSION2
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-3 and 10-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and 10-21.
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
kis
2 In the event of further prosecution, we direct the Examiner's attention to a
precedential Board decision to ensure the "computer-readable storage
medium" recited in claims 16-21 is directed to statutOPJ subject matter
under § 101. Under our jurisprudence, the scope of the recited "computer-
readable storage medium" appears to encompass transitory media such as
signals or carrier waves. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857
(PT AB 2013) (precedential) (holding recited machine-readable storage
medium ineligible under § 101 since it encompasses transitory media).
Here, the recited "computer-readable storage medium" is not claimed as
non-transitory, and the originally-filed Specification does not expressly and
unambiguously disclaim transitory forms, such as signals, via a definition or
disclaimer. See Spec. i-f 127 ("programs may be encoded on various
computer readable media for storage and/or transmission" (emphasis
added)). Therefore, the "computer-readable storage medium" of claims 16-
21 is not limited to non-transitory forms and appears ineligible under § 101.
Although, the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b ), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
9