Ex Parte Venkataraman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 15, 2012

10990745 (B.P.A.I. May. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte SREEDHARAN VENKATARAMAN, ABHIJIT K. UPADHYAY,
SAURABH JENTILAL HANSALIA, and NAYYER M. IQBAL
________________

Appeal 2010-002545
Application 10/990,745
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002545
Application 10/990,745

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 21 – 44. Responsive to a restriction requirement, claims 1
– 20 were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to techniques for data modeling and analysis
(Spec. ¶ [0001]). With these techniques, symptoms associated with an
observed problem are used to mine a knowledge store for questions
(Abstract). Interactive answers to the questions are used to dynamically mine
the data store for potential causes and for corrective actions to the problem
(id.).
Exemplary Claim
21. A method implemented in a computer-readable medium,
comprising:
receiving one or more symptoms observed for a problem
associated with a resource that is modeled as a hierarchy of
relationships and dependencies to components of the resource,
and wherein the hierarchy includes multiple levels and each
level corresponds to a different device and the resource includes
a higher level dependency and a lower level dependency within
the hierarchy, and wherein the resource also represents a
categorical entity within the hierarchy that includes an
identifier, the identifier providing information of a chapter or a
section associated with a manual or a guide for the resource;
posing one or more questions or procedures in response to the
one or more symptoms and in response to the relationships and
the dependencies;
Appeal 2010-002545
Application 10/990,745

3
receiving one or more answers to the one or more questions;
determining one or more corrective actions in response to the
one or more answers after a cause is determined; and
presenting the one or more correction actions to resolve the
problem.
(Emphasis added).
Evidence and Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 21 – 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bortcosh (US 5,983,364), Kidder (US 6,715,097
B1), and Felke (US 2004/0039499 A1) (Ans. 3 – 13).
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Felke teaches or suggests
“wherein the resource also represents a categorical entity within the
hierarchy that includes an identifier, the identifier providing information of a
chapter or a section associated with a manual or a guide for the resource,” as
recited in claim 21?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Felke teaches or suggests
“wherein the resource is also represented within the hierarchy as categorical
entity within the hierarchy that includes a thesaurus having domain words
and those domain words’ synonyms that are used when searching a
knowledge store,” as recited in claim 29?
ANALYSIS
Claim 21
The Examiner finds that Felke, which is directed to a relational
database for maintenance information for complex systems, teaches or
Appeal 2010-002545
Application 10/990,745

4
suggests a resource that represents a categorical entity within a hierarchy
that includes an identifier, the identifier providing information of a chapter
or section associated with a manual or guide for the resource (see Ans. 5 and
13 – 14). Appellants argue that “[t]here is no ability whatsoever in Felke to
use identifiers to for [sic] resource maps to chapters and sections of manuals.
The cited passage by the Examiner is only showing [sic] key words and
phrases used to generate fault codes” (App. Br. 11).
Felke teaches that “[d]ocument elements are used to link fault model
entities to sections of a maintenance or operational document” (Felke
¶ [0033]). A section of a maintenance or operational document teaches or
suggests a section associated with a manual or guide for the resource. Felke
further teaches that “[a] document element may have one or more
superceding document references” (id.). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that a document reference teaches or suggests the claimed
identifier (Ans. 14).
Alternatively, we note that what the claimed resource represents and
the information provided by the claimed identifier are merely non-functional
descriptive material. The Examiner need not give patentable weight to
descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship
between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d
1579, 1583 – 84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2004); and Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative).
Therefore, what the claimed resource represents and the information
provided by the claimed identifier would not differentiate the claimed
invention from the cited prior art.
Appeal 2010-002545
Application 10/990,745

5
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 21, as well as the
rejection of claims 22 – 28, which are not argued separately (see App. Br. 10
– 11).
Claim 29
The Examiner also finds that Felke teaches or suggests a resource
represented in a hierarchy as a categorical entity within the hierarchy that
includes a thesaurus having domain words and those domain words’
synonyms that are used when searching a knowledge store (Ans. 8).
Appellants argue that “[t]here is not a single arguable reference or hint or
suggestion of thesauri or synonyms in the Felke reference” (App. Br. 12).
However, Felke teaches “a categorical entity [as] a thesaurus entity 129”
(Felke ¶ [0038]; see also Felke Fig. 1). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Felke teaches or suggests a categorical entity that includes a thesaurus.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 29, as well as the
rejection of claims 30 – 38, which are not argued separately (see App. Br. 11
– 12).
Claim 39
Appellants submit that “[a] synonym is a word that has the same
meaning with another different word” (App. Br. 12). Appellants argue that
Felke fails to disclose any introduction or use of synonyms or thesauri terms
(id.) However, Felke teaches that thesaurus entries are stored with
properties that include “a synonym list of equivalent entries” (Felke
¶ [0038]). Thus, Felke teaches or suggests domain word synonyms (i.e.,
equivalent entries).
Appeal 2010-002545
Application 10/990,745

6
Appellants further argue that “there is no indication of any change
package in Felke” (id.). However, Felke also teaches “a categorical entity
known as a change package entity” (Felke ¶ [0039]) (emphasis added).
Thus, Felke teaches or suggests a change package.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 39, as well as the
rejection of claims 40 – 44, which are not argued separately (see App. Br.
12).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21 – 44.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc