Ex Parte Byrne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 2016

13036834 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/036,834 02/28/2011 63675 7590 08/01/2016 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL 24 Greenway Plaza SUITE 1600 HOUSTON, TX 77046-2472 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR BRIANP. BYRNE 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. S VL920100079US 1 5706 EXAMINER PARK, GRACE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2157 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2016 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): P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN P. BYRNE, MARTIN A. OBERHOFER, SUSHAIN PANDIT, and CHARLES D. WOLFSON Appeal2015-003143 Application 13/036,834 Technology Center 2100 Before IRVINE. BRANCH, AMBER L. HAGY, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 8, 10-15, and 17-21. Claims 1-7, 9, and 16 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2015-003143 Application 13/036,834 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to managing information assets using feedback re-enforced search and navigation. Spec. Abstract. Claim 8, reproduced below (with the "argued limitations" italicized), is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 8. A computer-readable storage medium storing an application, which, when executed on a processor, performs an operation for presenting relationships between a plurality of information assets managed by an enterprise, the operation compnsmg: identifying, by an enterprise information asset management application executed on a computing system having at least a processor and a memory, a set of search results responsive to a query requesting a subset of information assets within the enterprise; providing the set of search results; receiving a selection of a first information asset presented in the set of search results; identifYing at least a second information asset presented in the set of search results, wherein the first information asset and the second information asset are related to one another by an edge in a semantic graph that represents relationships between the plurality of information assets, wherein the semantic graph associates the plurality of information assets with nodes of the semantic graph, and wherein the relationships between nodes in the semantic graph are generated and updated by monitoring user behavior in accessing the plurality of information assets with the set of search results, and wherein the semantic graph is updated based on a domain ontology; and providing an indication of the second information asset. REJECTION Claims 8, 10-15, and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Prochazka (US 2010/0250526 Al; publ. Sept. 30, 2 Appeal2015-003143 Application 13/036,834 2010), Yi (US 2008/0004989 Al; publ. Jan. 3, 2008), and Najm (US 2011/0040776 Al; publ. Feb. 17, 2011). ANALYSIS Appellants argue error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 15 on the basis of shortcomings in the teachings of Prochazka. App. Br. 7-11. Appellants do not present separate arguments as to the rejection of the remaining claims in the Appeal Brief. See, generally, id. 1 Accordingly, whether the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 8 is dispositive of this appeal. Appellants argue that Prochazka does not teach or suggest the argued limitations and it "would not make sense" for Prochazka's "semantic search engine" to perform the "receiving" step and the subsequent "identifying" step thereafter. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 5---6. We are unpersuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Ans. 5-9), which Appellants do not persuasively rebut. See, generally, Reply Br. 5-6. The Examiner finds that "the user's interaction, usage, and walk of the nodes in [Prochazka's] attention map entails selecting database items in the search results to interact with, use, or walk to." Ans. 5, 6 (citing Prochazka, i-fi-195, 97, and 98). In reply, Appellants argue that the "semantic search engine" of Proch[a]zka does not send an "attention map" (itself a graph of products, categories, and relationships between products) in response to a search query to a user and thereafter, ( 1) receive back a selection of a node from 1 Appellants present additional arguments regarding claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 in the Reply Brief. Reply Br. 6-7. We do not reach the merits of these arguments because they are newly presented in Appellants' Reply Brief. See Carbino v. West, 168 F.3d 32, 34--35 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 3 Appeal2015-003143 Application 13/036,834 the "attention map" and (2) identify "at least a second information asset presented in the set of search results," as claimed (or otherwise). Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). This argument does not, however, persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that "[e]ach time a database item is selected, the database item is identified to the semantic engine as having been selected by the user. In other words, a second database item is identified in response to a first database item being selected by the user." Ans. 9. We are unpersuaded of error for at least this reason. Because this issue is dispositive, we sustain the rejection of all pending claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 8, 10-15, and 17- 21. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4