Cognitive Scale, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2021

2020002381 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2021)

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.
14/734,498 06/09/2015 Neeraj Chawla COGSC-15-009.2 1011
33438 7590 06/30/2021
TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
EXAMINER
ALABI, OLUWATOSIN O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2021 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
celeste@tcciplaw.com
tmunoz@tcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NEERAJ CHAWLA, JOSHUA L. SEGARS,
and MANOJ SAXENA
___________

Appeal 2020–002381
Application 14/734,498
Technology Center 2100

____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–12 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 4. Claims 1 and 7 are independent.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 16, 2019), the
Final Action (mailed April 25, 2019) and the Answer (mailed November 18,
2019), for the respective details. Appeal 2020–002385 (14/734,495) is a
related appeal. See Appeal Brief 1.

2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (“The
Appeal 2020–002381
Application 14/734,498
2

We affirm.
Introduction
According to Appellant, “A method, system and computer-usable
medium are disclosed for cognitive inference and learning operations”
Specification ¶ 6.

Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A computer-implementable method for providing composite cognitive
insights comprising:
receiving streams of data from a plurality of data sources;
processing the streams of data from the plurality of data sources via a
cognitive inference and learning system, the processing the streams
of data from the plurality of data sources performing data enriching
and generating a sub-graph for incorporation into a cognitive
graph, the cognitive graph being stored within a repository of
cognitive graphs, the cognitive inference and learning system
executing on a hardware processor of an information processing
system, the cognitive inference and learning system and the

word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the
joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in
§§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies Cognitive Scale, Inc., as the
real party in interest. See Appeal Brief 1.

3 Appellant does not argue the claims individually. See Appeal Brief 4–8.
Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of
rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may
select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal
as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the
basis of the selected claim alone.”).
Appeal 2020–002381
Application 14/734,498
3

information processing system providing a cognitive computing
function, the cognitive inference and learning system comprising a
cognitive platform, the cognitive platform comprising a cognitive
engine, the cognitive engine comprising
a dataset engine, a graph query engine and an insight engine, the
insight engine comprising an insight agent, the dataset
engine being implemented to establish and maintain a
dynamic data ingestion and enrichment pipeline, the graph
query engine being implemented to receive and process
queries such that the queries are bridged into the cognitive
graph, the insight/learning engine being implemented to
generate a cognitive insight from the cognitive graph, the
dataset engine, the graph query engine and the
insight/learning engine operating collaboratively to generate
the cognitive insight;
a sourcing agent, the sourcing agent sourcing the data streams and the
enriched data streams; and,
a destination agent, the destination agent publishing the cognitively
processed insights to a consumer of cognitive insight data;
processing the cognitive graph via the insight agent, the processing the cognitive
graph providing a plurality of individual cognitive insights for a user, the
insight agent using the cognitive graph as a data source to provide the
plurality of individual insights;
generating a composite cognitive insight, the composite cognitive insight being
composed of the plurality of individual cognitive insights, the generating
orchestrating the insight agent to generate the composite cognitive insight
from the plurality of individual cognitive insights; and,
Appeal 2020–002381
Application 14/734,498
4

providing the composite cognitive insight to the user via the cognitive
application, the cognitive application presenting the user with the
composite cognitive insight as a set of cognitive media content, the set of
cognitive media content being selected from a repository of cognitive
media content by the cognitive platform, the set of cognitive media
content comprising a commercial offer content element.

References
Name4 Reference Date
Baughman US 2015/0294216 A1 October 15, 2015
Bauer US 2015/0317376 A1 November 5, 2015
Chandalia US 9,224,101 B1 December 29, 2015
Shi-Nash US 2017/0039602 A1 February 9, 2017

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant
regards as the invention. Final Action 4–5.
Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bauer, Baughman and Chandalia. Final Action 6–
40.
Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bauer, Baughman, Chandalia and Shi-Nash. Final Action
41–44.

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2020–002381
Application 14/734,498
5

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answers in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, except where
noted.

35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Rejection
Appellant contends, “It is believed that the indefiniteness rejection[ ]
can be readily addressed when the rejections over the art are resolved.”
Appeal Brief 4. Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner error
because Appellant does not address the merits of the rejection in the instant
application. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“The arguments shall explain
why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by
appellant.”) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any
arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused
consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 1–
12.

35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
It is noted at the outset that Appellant does not provide citations to the
portions of the Examiner’s rejection that Appellant alleges are erroneous.
Appellant contends, in regard to independent claims 1 and 7 that
“when discussing the elements of a cognitive inference and learning system,
Appeal 2020–002381
Application 14/734,498
6

the cognitive inference and learning system comprising a cognitive platform,
the cognitive platform comprising a cognitive engine, the cognitive engine
comprising an insight engine, the insight engine comprising an insight agent,
the examiner cites to Bauer.” Appeal Brief 5. Appellant argues:
Specifically, the examiner cites to a portion of Bauer which
discloses leveraging multiple data sources to provide predictive
models for skill assessment and predictions, converting
enterprise data into knowledge graphs to represent expert-skill
grouping information and based the skill assessment prediction
at least in part on machine learning and data mining techniques
including graph inference and co-clustering (see e.g., Bauer,
Paragraph [0077]).
Appeal Brief 5.
The Examiner does not rely on Bauer’s paragraph 77 only. The
Examiner finds Bauer discloses a cognitive inference and learning system in
paragraphs 46, 77, 84, 85 and Figure 5; a cognitive platform comprising a
cognitive engine in paragraphs 5 and 89–91; an insight engine comprising an
insight agent in paragraphs 80–83, 90 and 91. See Final Action 6–10.
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred because Appellant’s
arguments fail to address all the merits of the obviousness rejection. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Merely reciting language of the claims and
asserting the cited prior art reference does not teach or suggest the claim
limitation is insufficient. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011). Appellant further contends, “These deficiencies of Bauer are not
cured by Baughman or Chandalia, alone or in combination.” Appeal Brief 5.
Appellant has not shown that Bauer is deficient as alleged and therefore
Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant contends,
[N]owhere within the cited portions of Bauer (nor
anywhere else in Bauer) is there any disclosure or suggestion of
Appeal 2020–002381
Application 14/734,498
7

cognitive engine comprising a dataset engine, a graph query
engine and an insight engine as disclosed and claimed, much less
the dataset engine being implemented to establish and maintain
a dynamic data ingestion and enrichment pipeline, the graph
query engine being implemented to receive and process queries
such that the queries are bridged into the cognitive graph, the
insight/learning engine being implemented to generate a
cognitive insight from the cognitive graph, the dataset engine, the
graph query engine and the insight/learning engine operating
collaboratively to generate the cognitive insight. These
deficiencies of Bauer are not cured by Baughman or Chandalia,
alone or in combination.
Appeal Brief 6 (referring to Bauer ¶¶ 90, 91).
The Examiner does not rely on Bauer’s paragraphs 90 and 91 only.
The Examiner finds Bauer discloses the “the cognitive engine comprising a
dataset engine, a graph query engine and an insight engine, the insight engine
comprising an insight agent, the dataset engine being implemented to establish
and maintain a dynamic data ingestion and enrichment pipeline” limitation in
paragraphs 26, 27, 33, 34, 46, 75, 81, 82, 90 and 91, as well as, Figure 1.
See Final Action 8–9. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred
because Appellant’s arguments fail to address all the merits of the
obviousness rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also Lovin, 652
F.3d at 1357. Furthermore, Appellant has not shown that Bauer is deficient
as alleged and therefore Appellant’s contention that neither Baughman nor
Chandalia, alone or in combination, fail to address Bauer’s alleged deficit is
not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant contends:
[N]owhere within the cited portions of Bauer (nor
anywhere else in Bauer) is there any disclosure or suggestion of
cognitive engine comprising a sourcing agent and a destination
agent, much less the sourcing agent sourcing the data streams and
the enriched data streams and the destination agent publishing
Appeal 2020–002381
Application 14/734,498
8

the cognitively processed insights to a consumer of cognitive
insight data. These deficiencies of Bauer are not cured by
Baughman or Chandalia, alone or in combination.
Appeal Brief 6 (referring to Bauer ¶¶ 90, 91).
The Examiner does not rely on Bauer’s paragraphs 90 and 91 only.
The Examiner cites Bauer’s paragraph 46 and Figure 1, as well as, Bauer’s
paragraphs 90 and 91 to disclose the claimed sourcing agent. See Final
Action 10. The Examiner cites Bauer’s paragraphs 70 and 77, as well as,
Bauer’s paragraphs 90 and 91 to disclose the claimed destination agent. See
Final Action 10–11. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred
because Appellant’s arguments fail to address all the merits of the
obviousness rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also Lovin, 652
F.3d at 1357. Furthermore, Appellant has not shown that Bauer is deficient
as alleged and therefore Appellant’s contention that neither Baughman nor
Chandalia, alone or in combination, fail to address Bauer’s alleged deficit is
not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant contends:
[T]hat nowhere within the cited portions of Bauer and
Chandalia (nor anywhere else in Bauer and Chandalia) is there
any disclosure or suggestion of providing the composite
cognitive insight to the user via the cognitive application, the
cognitive application presenting the user with the composite
cognitive insight as a set of cognitive media content, the set of
cognitive media content being selected from a repository of
cognitive media content by the cognitive platform, as required by
claims 1 and as substantially required by claim 7.
Appeal Brief 7; see Bauer 71–72; Chandalia column 1, lines 36–40, column
2 line 66 – column 3, line 2).
Appellant concludes, “Accordingly, claims 1 and 7 are allowable over
Bauer and Chandalia. Claims 2–6 depend from claim 1 and are allowable for
Appeal 2020–002381
Application 14/734,498
9

at least this reason. Claims 8– 12 depend from claim 7 and are allowable for
at least this reason.” Appeal Brief 7.
The Examiner relies upon Bauer’s paragraphs 76, 77, 89 and 90 in
addition to paragraphs 71 and 72 in combination with Baughman’s
paragraphs 90 and 125, as well as, Chandalia (column 1, lines 36–48,
column 2, line 66 – column 3, line 2, column 6, lines 12–35) to disclose the
alleged disputed limitations. See Final Action 14–16. The Examiner
determines that, “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
integrate use cognitive media content comprising a commercial offer and
streaming data as disclosed by Chandalia with the information processing
method collectively disclosed by Bauer and Baughman.” Final Action 16.
The Examiner further determines that, “One of ordinary skill in the arts
would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an
improvement of developing a model to support advertising campaigns that
can capitalizes on quickly developing trends in user behavior (Chandalia,
1:27-36).” Final Action 16. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred because Appellant’s arguments fail to address all the merits of the
obviousness rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also Lovin, 652
F.3d at 1357. Subsequently, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1 and 7, as well as, dependent claims 2, 3, 5,
6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 7.
Appellant argues:
[T]hat nowhere within the cited portions of Bauer and Shi-
Nash (nor anywhere else in Bauer and Shi-Nash) is there any
disclosure or suggestion of referencing a cognitive persona when
generating the composite cognitive insight, the cognitive persona
comprising an archetype user model representing a common set
Appeal 2020–002381
Application 14/734,498
10

of attributes associated with a hypothesized group of users, as
required by claims 4 and 10. Accordingly, claims 4 and 10 are
allowable over Bauer, Chandalia and Shi-Nash for at least this
additional reason.
Appeal Brief 9; see Bauer ¶7, Shi-Nash ¶¶ 2, 3 and 83.
In regard to claims 4 and 10, the Examiner relied upon the
combination of Bauer, Baughman, Chandalia and Shi-Nash. See Final
Action 41. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 4 and 10 because Appellant’s arguments fail to address the
merits of the obviousness rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see
also Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.

CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12 112 Indefiniteness 1–12
1–3, 5–9, 11,
12
103 Bauer, Baughman,
Chandalia
1–3, 5–9, 11,
12

4, 10 103 Bauer, Baughman,
Chandalia, Shi-
Nash
4, 10
Overall
Outcome
1–12

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED