Ex Parte Braudes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 2018

13801721 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/801,721 03/13/2013 48500 7590 11/28/2018 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert Braudes 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. 4366YDT-173 7133 EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2157 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/28/2018 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): cjacquet@sheridanross.com pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com edocket@sheridanross.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT BRAUDES, GORDON R. BRUNSON, and KENNETH 0. MICHIE Appeal2018-001412 Application 13/801, 721 Technology Center 2100 Before HUNG H. BUI, IRVINE. BRANCH, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-15, and 17-20. Claims 5 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims. Final Act. 20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-001412 Application 13/801, 721 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 'Invention Appellants' invention generally relates to "providing an extensible data filtering model where data is organized into a tree." Spec. ,r 4. According to the Specification, "[t]he extensible data filtering model allows filtering at any level, with nodes added to a tree after a query is defined, and with automatic propagation into a data structure." Id. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A method, comprising: receiving, by a server, a query from a communication device, the query defining a filter criterion to be applied to a data structure that comprises a first node that is a parent node and a second node that is a child node of the parent node; applying, by the server, the filter criterion to the data structure as a result of the query by searching both the first and second nodes for an entry that satisfies the filter criterion to obtain a first result; automatically applying, by the server, the query to a third node to obtain a second result, the third node being created in the data structure after the first result is obtained; and generating, by the server, a notification comprising the second result that is provided to the communication device. Examiner's Rejections & References Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Richardson et al. (US 2004/0199539 Al; published Oct. 7, 2004) ("Richardson") and 2 Appeal2018-001412 Application 13/801, 721 Yamamoto et al. (US 2007/0106767 Al; published May 10, 2007) ("Yamamoto"). Final Act. 2-7. Claims 2, 10, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Richardson, Yamamoto, and Menten (US 2013/0246454 Al; published Sept. 19, 2013). Final Act. 7-10. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Richardson, Yamamoto, and Trossen et al. (US 2005/0289097 Al; published Dec. 29, 2005) ("Trossen"). Final Act. 10-12. Claims 4, 7, 11-13, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Richardson, Yamamoto, and Ansari et al. (US 2010/0217837 Al; published Aug. 26, 2010) ("Ansari"). Final Act. 12-18. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Richardson, Yamamoto, Menten, and Ansari. Final Act. 18-20. ANALYSIS Appellants contend the combination of Richardson and Yamamoto fails to teach or suggest "automatically applying, by the server, the query to a third node to obtain a second result, the third node being created in the data structure after the first result is obtained," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8- 9; Reply Br. 3-5. According to Appellants, claim 1 requires "that a query searches a data structure to obtain a first result and a third node is created in the data structure after the first result is obtained, and the query is automatically applied to the third node." App. Br. 9. Appellants 3 Appeal2018-001412 Application 13/801, 721 acknowledge Yamamoto teaches a process for searching a database and creating identifiers including topic contents/attributes based on a result of the search, but argue Yamamoto is silent regarding automatically applying the query used to search the database to a node created in the data structure after the results of the first search are obtained, as required by claim 1. Id. ( citing Yamamoto ,r 3 6). Appellants' arguments are persuasive. The Examiner finds Yamamoto' s process for creating a topic node identifier set of identifiers of the topic nodes and an association node identifier set of identifiers of the association nodes by searching the first and second databases based on the search condition for teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation. Ans. 3 (citing Yamamoto ,r,r 33-36). In finding Yamamoto's process teaches or suggests the disputed limitation, the Examiner maps the association node identifier set of identifiers of the association nodes to the claimed "third node." Id. However, the Examiner's findings fail to show that Yamamoto teaches or suggests that the search condition ( e.g., query) is applied to the association node identifier set of identifiers of the association nodes (e.g., third node), as required by claim 1. Additionally, the Examiner finds "the T [topic] node is added as data for describing a specific meaning of an association indicated by a certain A [association] node which these two nodes are associated with each other based on associated role predefined." Ans. 3--4 (citing Yamamoto ,r 106). However, the Examiner's findings are insufficient to show that the T node is created in the data structure after a first search result is obtained. Instead, Yamamoto appears to teach that the T node is added prior to performing a search of the database. See Yamamoto ,r,r 90-118. 4 Appeal2018-001412 Application 13/801, 721 For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Richardson and Yamamoto teaches the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1; independent claims 9 and 14, which recite similar limitations; and claims 2--4, 6-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20, which depend from claims 1, 9, and 14. We do not reach Appellants' further allegations of error because we find the issue discussed above to be dispositive as to the rejection of all the pending claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSED 5