Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2020

14572424 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2020)

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.
14/572,424 12/16/2014 Siddharth JOHRI 20140334 5979
170053 7590 06/02/2020
VERIZON - ALG
VERIZON PATENTING GROUP
1300 I STREET NW
SUITE 500 EAST
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
EL-BATHY, MOHAMED N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2020 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):
170053@alg-ip.com
VZPatent170053@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SIDDHARTH JOHRI, PAUL GERSHTEN,
RAJEEV KUMAR KUNNUMMAL, and
VIKRANT NARENDRA VERMA

Appeal 2019-005043
Application 14/572,424
Technology Center 3600

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to reference the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Verizon
Communications Inc.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005043
Application 14/572,424

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to an “extract, transform, and load
(ETL)” process, which “[i]n computing . . . refers to a process in database
usage . . . that extracts data from outside sources, transforms the data to fit
operational needs, . . . , [and] loads the data into an end target database.”
Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter
argued on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
performing, by a server, an extract, transform, and load
(“ETL”) process that includes parallel performance of:
retrieving chat and call log files from a customer service
database, the chat and call log files including meta-data
elements characterizing data in the chat and call log files,
and
automatically storing the chat and call log files into a
server database;
receiving, by the server, a search query implemented as at least
one of a phrase query and a wildcard query and related to the
chat and call log files stored in the server database;
searching, using the meta-data elements, the chat and call log
files responsive to the search query and in parallel with the
parallel ETL process; and
providing, by the server, results satisfying the search query to a
client computing device for display.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
Rejections
Claims 1–3, 8–10, and 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gatto (US 2014/0280197 A1; Sept. 18, 2014) and
Liberman (US 2013/0136253 A1; May 30, 2013). Final Act. 4–8.
Appeal 2019-005043
Application 14/572,424

3
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gatto, Liberman, and Yao (US 2014/0122628 A1; May 1,
2014). Final Act. 8–9.
Claims 5–7, 12–14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Gatto, Liberman, Yao, and Beasley (US 2016/0132812
A1; May 12, 2016). Final Act. 9–12.
OPINION
Appellant argues claims 1–20 with reference to claim 1.
Appeal Br. 13–14. For the following reasons, we are unpersuaded of error
in the rejection of claim 1 and accordingly sustain all rejections.
Appellant contends Liberman does not teach or suggest the following
subject matter for which it is cited: “searching, using the meta-data
elements, the chat and call log files responsive to the search query and in
parallel with the parallel ETL process.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix);
see also id. at 9 (identifying the disputed limitation), 10–13 (addressing
Liberman); Final Act. 2–3, 6–7 (applying Liberman); Ans. 3–4 (applying
Liberman). In doing so, Appellant characterizes the Examiner’s findings as
follows:
[T]he Office’s argument appears to have shifted from the
argument of the Final Office Action that was addressed in the
Appeal Brief. See [Ans. 3–4]. Specifically, in the Answer, the
Office’s argument appears to be[:] 1) that [the] Liberman
. . . web analyzer 1312 . . . performs searching operations;
2) that [the] Liberman . . . web analyzer 518 . . . performs a
parallel ETL process; 3) that Liberman states that
“[e]mbodiments of the invention may support multiple web
analyzers operating concurrently or in parallel” (paragraph
[0354]); and, 4) that, therefore, one web analyzer embodiment
may perform searching in parallel with another web analyzer
embodiment performing a parallel ETL process.
Appeal 2019-005043
Application 14/572,424

4
Reply Br. 3–4; see also id. at 8–9; Appeal Br. 10–13. For the below reasons,
we disagree with Appellant’s characterization of the rejection.
We do not agree with Appellant that the rejection has changed. In
both the Answer and Final Action, the Examiner finds: Liberman’s data
extractor 540, post extractor 542, and configuration loader 544 perform an
ETL process; and, Liberman’s interaction center 528 and open sessions
database 538 perform a search query on ETL data. Ans. 4; Final Act. 2.
The Examiner relies on these components 528, 538, 540, 542, 544 and
Liberman’s teachings of parallel operations—not on an explicit parallel
operation of Liberman’s above web analyzers 518, 1312. Id. The Examiner
relies on Liberman’s web analyzers only inasmuch that they are generally
described as providing parallel operations and the cited web analyzers 518,
1312 are specifically described as providing ETL and search functions. Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Liberman. We find the
components 540, 542, 544 asserted as teaching the claimed ETL process are
used to derive metadata from open web sessions. Liberman ¶ 88.
Additionally, we find the components 528, 538 asserted as teaching the
claimed search are used to search metadata of open web sessions, e.g., to
search for a specified user’s open session. Liberman ¶ 72. Further, we find
the same metadata can be derived and searched by these components 528,
538, 540, 542, 544; e.g., customer identifications are extracted and searched
to determine open sessions of specific customers. Id. ¶¶ 70, 72. For the
above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the components 528, 538,
540, 542, 544 are prima facie evidence that the claimed parallel ETL and
search of metadata would have been obvious.
Appeal 2019-005043
Application 14/572,424

5
Appellant’s further arguments do not address the Examiner’s above
reliance on Liberman. The Appeal Brief piecemeal attacks individual
paragraphs of Liberman as failing to alone describe a parallel ETL and
search of metadata. Appeal Br. 10–13. The Reply Brief, as reflected by its
above block-quoted characterization of the rejection, addresses whether
Liberman’s cited web analyzers 518, 1312 are explicitly described as
performing a parallel ETL and search of metadata. Reply Br. 3–5, 8–9. The
arguments, therefore, fail to address the Examiner’s specific findings
regarding Liberman’s teachings for the relied-upon components 528, 538,
540, 542, 544.
Additionally, Appellant contends Liberman does not describe a web
analyzer that searches metadata of chat and call log files. Reply Br. 5.
Appellant also contends Liberman does not describe ETL extraction and
loading performed in parallel. Id. at 6–8. Because Appellant did not set
forth these arguments in a timely manner prior to filing of the Reply Brief to
permit the Examiner an opportunity to fully respond, these arguments are
not considered by the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument
raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not
responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer . . . will not be
considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good
cause is shown). See also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI
2010) (informative opinion) (“the reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make
arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to
rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”).
Therefore, for the reasons indicated above, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1−20.
Appeal 2019-005043
Application 14/572,424

6
OVERALL CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 8–10,
15–17 103 Gatto, Liberman
1–3, 8–10,
15–17
4, 11, 18 103 Gatto, Liberman, Yao 4, 11, 18
5–7, 12–14,
19, 20 103
Gatto, Liberman,
Yao, Beasley
5–7, 12–14,
19, 20
Overall
Outcome 1–20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this Appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED