Ex Parte Blanchflower et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 2017

13535475 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017)

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. 13/535,475 06/28/2012 SEAN BLANCHFLOWER 82990564 6055 56436 7590 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 EXAMINER TRAN, ANHTAI V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2168 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2017 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 chris. mania @ hpe. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SEAN BLANCHFLOWER and DARREN JOHN GALLAGHER Appeal 2016-000816 Application 13/535,4751 Technology Center 2100 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1, 4—14, and 16—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Longsand Limited, which is a subsidiary of Hewlett- Packard Company, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-000816 Application 13/535,475 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellants’ invention relates to accessing structured and unstructured data. Spec. 17. Structured data has predefined data models and can typically be accessed using database queries. Spec. 5. Unlike structured data, unstructured data has no predefined data model and does not fit well into the rows and columns of relational databases, making it more difficult to access. Spec. 1 6. Appellants’ invention correlates structured data with unstructured data which allows for access and analytics to be performed on both the structured and unstructured data in a more integrated manner. Spec. 18. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method comprising: determining, by a system having a processor, correlative patterns in structured data in a first data collection and in unstructured data in a second data collection, wherein the determining comprises: finding a first pattern in the structured data and a second pattern in the unstructured data using clustering of data items in the structured data and the unstructured data, the clustering producing clusters that correspond to respective concepts, the clusters including clusters of data items in the structured data and clusters of data items in the unstructured data, and determining a degree of similarity between the first and second patterns, the degree of similarity based on distances between the clusters of data items in the structured data and the clusters of data items in the unstructured data; and processing, in response to a request for data, the structured data and the unstructured data according to the determined correlative patterns. 2 Appeal 2016-000816 Application 13/535,475 References and Rejections 1. Claims 1, 11—13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bomea et al. (US 2013/0332478 Al, Dec. 12, 2013), and Knight (US 2005/0171948 Al, Aug. 4, 2005). 2. Claims 4—6, 19, and 202 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bomea, Knight, and Gardner (US 2003/0177112 Al, Sept. 18, 2003). 3. Claim 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bomea, Knight, and Goeldi (US 2010/0119053 Al, May 13,2010). 4. Claims 8—10, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bomea, Knight, and Mok et al. (US 2010/0228721 Al, Sept. 9, 2010). 5. Claims 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bomea, Knight, and Spangler (US 2008/0177736 Al, July 24, 2008). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Bomea teaches or suggests the step of determining a degree of similarity between the first and second patterns in stmctured and unstmctured data respectively, but does not disclose that the 2 Claim 20 is omitted from the header of the statement of rejection but is addressed in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 8, 10. We, therefore, treat the Examiner’s failure to list the rejection as a clerical or typographical error and consider it maintained as part of this rejection. 3 Appeal 2016-000816 Application 13/535,475 degree of similarity is based on distances between the clusters of data items in the structured data and clusters of data items in the unstructured data. Final Act. 5—6. The Examiner finds Knight teaches or suggests that the degree of similarity between a first and second pattern can be determined based on distances between clusters of data items in the structured and unstructured data. Final Act. 6 (citing Knight || 67, 91, Figs. 7, 18). Appellants argue “Knight clearly does not provide any teaching or hint of ‘determining a degree of similarity between the first and second patterns, the degree of similarity based on distances between the clusters of data items in the structured data and the clusters of data items in the unstructured data.’” App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants argue: [I]n Knight, the formation of clusters is based on distances between features. In contrast, claim 1 refers to determining a degree of similarity based on distances between the clusters of data items in the structured data and the clusters of data items in the unstructured data. Stated differently, while the claim calls for determining a degree of similarity based on distances between clusters, Knight describes forming clusters based on distances between features. App. Br. 7. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument. “[A], . . reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims.” Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991); cf. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing AkzoN.V. v. U.S. Inti Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 &n.ll (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (interpretation of references “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.”). Appellants’ Specification describes a “clustering” as placing “data items into groups that can relate to corresponding concepts.” Spec. 122 (emphases added. Appellants’ Specification describes that clustering can be used for 4 Appeal 2016-000816 Application 13/535,475 determining a degree of similarity between features of different data items. Spec. 122. Appellants’ Specification further explains “[distances between clusters can be used for deriving conceptual distances between features in data items in the structured and unstructured data collections, and these conceptual distances can be used for indicating degrees of similarity between the features.” Spec. 122. Thus, techniques for determining the distance between clusters are the same as techniques for determining distance between features. Knight describes a “feature” as “[a] collection [i.e., group] of terms or phrases [i.e., data items] with common sematic meanings, also referred to as a concept.” Knight 145 (emphases added). We conclude that Knight’s “feature” falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “cluster” as used in claim 1. Knight discloses that similarity between features in data can be determined based on distances between those features. Knight || 67, 91. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us that Knight’s teaching of determining a distance between features does not teach determining a distance between “clusters,” as we have construed that term in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 18 which include commensurate limitations and for which Appellants do not present any additional arguments for patentability. See App. Br. 8. For the same reasons we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the pending dependent claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4—14, and 16—23. 5 Appeal 2016-000816 Application 13/535,475 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6