Ex Parte BHALLA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2018

13826042 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/826,042 03/14/2013
51206 7590 07/16/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Amit BHALLA
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.
88325-859777 (135600US) 9049
EXAMINER
KIM,PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2018 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
oraclepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT BHALLA, P ARAG AW ADHIY A
and ARUN TIW ARI
Appeal2018-001699
Application 13/826,042
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Oracle International Corporation as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-001699
Application 13/826,042
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
computing network node adjustments. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is
exemplary:
1. A method of computing relative rankings for multiple
course trajectories, the method comprising:
accessing a data structure comprising:
a first node representing a first course; and
a plurality of nodes representing courses that are
available after completing the first course, wherein:
each of the plurality of nodes is associated
with a weight; and
the plurality of nodes comprises a second
node representing a second course;
receiving a first grade for a student for the first course;
receiving a second grade for the student for the second
course;
adjusting the weight associated with the second node
using the first grade and the second grade; and
providing a ranking of the plurality of courses using the
weights of the plurality of courses.
References and Rejections
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over the collective teachings and suggestions of Mao
(US 2010/0287208 Al, pub. Nov. 11, 2010), Fakhrai (US 2012/0231437 Al,
pub. Sept. 13, 2012), and Snyder (US 8,052,426 B2, issued Nov. 8, 2011).
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the collective teachings and suggestions of Mao, Fakhrai,
Snyder, and Smithmier (US 2011/0212430 Al, pub. Sept. 1, 2011).
2
Appeal2018-001699
Application 13/826,042
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the collective teachings and suggestions of Mao, Fakhrai,
Snyder, and Hossfeld (US 2007/0156718 Al, pub. July 5, 2007).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of the
references collectively teach the following limitations recited in claim 1
( emphasis added):
a first node representing a first course; and
a plurality of nodes representing courses that are
available after completing the first course, wherein:
the plurality of nodes comprises a second node
representing a second course;
receiving a first grade for a student for the first course;
receiving a second grade for the student for the second course;
adjusting the weight associated with the second node using the
first grade and the second grade.
See App. Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 2--4. 2
The Examiner finds Mao does not teach the italicized limitation (Final
Act. 4) and determines:
While the combination of Mao and Fakhrai would read upon
the claimed feature of "adjusting the weight associated with the
second node," the aforementioned would fail to expressly
disclose the claimed feature of adjusting the weight is based
upon "the first grade and the second grade."
Final Act. 4.
2 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2018-001699
Application 13/826,042
While the combination of Mao and Fakhrai would read
upon the claimed feature of adjust the weight associated with a
node (i.e., adjusting assessments), the aforementioned
combination would fail to expressly disclose the claimed
feature of adjusting the weight is of a second node (which
represents a course available after a first course) using the first
grade and the second grade .
. . . Snyder discloses that "[i]n this case, certain modules
are deemed more relevant and therefore accorded a "heavier"
weight than other modules deemed less relevant, which are
accorded a "lighter" weight" and that "[a] student would be
deemed eligible for a class in a "higher" module if his weighted
average grade across all the prerequisite modules passes a
predetermined threshold, even if he has not yet achieved the
specific threshold grade which is required for one or more of
the individual prerequisite modules." See Snyder, column 16,
lines 52---65.
Ans. 3.
We disagree. Claim 1 recites "adjusting the weight associated with
the second node [ representing a second course] using the first grade and the
second grade [for the second course]" (emphases added). In contrast,
Fakhrai teaches using subsequent successes to adjust the assessment of prior
courses. See Fakhrai ,r,r 221, 232, 239. And Snyder teaches using the grades
of prior classes for determiningfuture class eligibility. See Snyder 16:57-
62 ("A student would be deemed eligible for a class in a 'higher' module if
his weighted average grade across all the prerequisite modules passes a
predetermined threshold, even if he has not yet achieved the specific
threshold grade which is required for one or more of the individual
prerequisite modules."). Therefore, the Examiner has not shown the cited
references collectively teach "adjusting the weight associated with the
4
Appeal2018-001699
Application 13/826,042
second node [ representing a second course] using ... the second grade [ for
the second course]," as required by claim 1.
Further, as applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Mao do not
remedy the deficiencies of Fakhrai and Snyder. See Final Act. 4.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claims 10 and 16 recites a claim limitation that is
substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 10 and
16. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 10 and 16.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20. Although the Examiner cites additional
references for rejecting some dependent claims (dependent claims 8 and 9,
which depend from claim 1 ), the Examiner has not shown the additional
references overcome the deficiency discussed above regarding the rejection
of claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
5